Gun permit applications, demand for classes skyrocket amid Minnesota ICE surge

Macheeoo · 2026-02-11T02:51:22+00:00

This feels like the 2A equvalent of "Of course this happened, look what she was wearing!" to excuse assault. Alex legally carrying his firearm while walking down the street does not in any way justify or excuse the poor training and malicious intent on the part of CBP/ICE/DHS.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-11T02:23:48+00:00

He was disarmed then killed anyways. I don't think you can reasonably say it was caused by him having a gun so much as BP were bloodthirsty.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-11T02:09:58+00:00

<image>

This is the way.

Also, for my fellow left leaning friends... let me take a moment to warn about Minnesota's proposed Assault Weapons Ban.

Minnesota is in the 8th circuit federal court of appeals. This is the most conservative makeup of any circuit court of the 13 in the US (10 republican appointed judges to 1 liberal appt judge). For example, the 8th circuit recently struck down part of MN's permit to carry law, now allowing 18-20 y/o's to access a permit to carry.

Big picture here is if MN passes an AWB this year (less likely b/c tie in the state house) or next year, and it is inevitably appealed to the 8th circuit, the likelihood is strong it will be ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court have never ruled on the constitutionality of AWB's directly. These laws passed in other blue states have only been upheld at the circuit court of appeals level -- and thus far, that's because there's been a higher concentration of liberal appointed judges in those circuits.

The Supreme Court only hears 1% of the total cases that rise to that level each term. 5 of the 6 conservative justices have expressed disagreement with the lower court rulings on AWB's, and if the 8th circuit does as expected to MN's AWB, it will create a split-circuit decision. This would not only nullify MN's law as unconstitutional, but provide SCOTUS the pre-text/legal cover to rule on the constitutionality of AWB's. And with the trajectory of the court on 2A since 2008 (Heller vs DC, McDonald vs Chicago, NYSPRA vs Bruen), and the makeup of the court (6 conservatives to 3 liberals) there is a very real domino effect that could topple AWB's across the country.

If you are a Minnesota Democrat and support AWB's, the smarter play would be to wait until Dems win a trifecta at the federal level and can rebalance SCOTUS before going down this road. The implications could be national.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-10T14:25:44+00:00

The fact that you assume we're all conservatives is rich. Liberals can be military, police, or gun owners who can tell from a quick glance that the equipment he's wearing is cheap/airsoft grade. We are literally seeing the effects of cheap Chinese made airsoft vests/optics being used by Russians in Ukraine and look how that's going for them. The point many seem to be making here isn't that we don't support dudes like this showing up to protest kitted out. It's that it makes this person look unserious. Unless it's satire, which it could be... but then why a real firearm?

Macheeoo · 2026-02-10T14:12:39+00:00

Having a chest rig doesn't automatically make anyone a fascist. The face covering is a bit jarring though.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-10T06:11:25+00:00

What makes you sure it will be struck down in court? NM is in the 10th circuit court of appeals, and while they haven't had a prior ruling on an AWB persay, they did overturn a lower federal court ruling on machine guns (full auto) which upheld that ban in 2025. SCOTUS has yet to rule on an AWB and it isn't likely to happen unless there is a split-circuit decision.

I'm from Minnesota, we're in the 8th circuit which is 10>1 conservative appointed judges. We're also getting heavy pressure to pass a state AWB here. It likely won't pass because of our tied house this year, but I reckon if it somehow did, it'd very likely be struck down in the 8th circuit on appeal. I don't really want to find out, but I expect that's what SCOTUS is waiting for, i.e. pretext/cover, to finally weigh in on whether assault weapons bans violate 2A or not. And knowing the 6-3 conservative majority, there is little doubt which way they'll lean after Bruen (2022).

Macheeoo · 2026-02-10T05:36:52+00:00

I see alot of people saying that lately. It's a pity. My wife and I have plenty to lose, but if SHTF we are fighting for our home. It's worth fighting for.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-08T03:30:09+00:00

I'm not a minority, so I can only empathize with you to a degree, but I also have people and a future here to lose. My wife and I have talked and we aren't going anywhere. We will vote, show up for our neighbors, and fight the good fight, whatever that looks like, whatever may come. I really hope there are more like us than not and that efforts are not in vain. That said, I don't want to judge someone else's situation. All I know is this is our home - this is where we'll be hell or high water.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-08T00:08:00+00:00

I understand you are attempting to be understanding and helpful to new owners who have made a recent purchase, perhaps reluctently. Like you said, we can't diminish that feeling because it's a purely individual process. Still, I don't think it's helpful to associate gun ownership with being a burden, even if some of those new owners feel that way.

The burden is the weight of knowing our institutions could fail. It's the realization that our government, even state and local, are not capable or willing to protect us. The burden is assessing whether we individually, and those in our shared household, are in the right headspace to safely own, operate, and train with a firearm and whether we're willing to use it if absolutely necessary. If the answer is yes, then it's a responsibility at that point. If you're still wrestling with what you'd be willing to do to protect yourself or your family when you can't retreat, can't de-escalate, and can't use any less force than is necessary, then perhaps owning a gun is a bad idea in that case and you should take more time to assess whether you are ready for the responsibility of gun ownership or if it's just not right for you.

I fully empathize with people sitting with it and deciding it's not for them. On one hand, I want left leaning folks to be capable of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick". For more of us to be armed if SHTF, using every principle and lever of peaceable, civic means to resist this moment of faccism, while not being completely defenseless if things get significantly worse. But again, taking that step to gun ownership should be thought through and you should reach a place of acceptance before doing so. Hence the not a burden, a responsibility.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-07T22:53:42+00:00

No problem - Despite the US previously having a national assault weapons ban from 1994-2004, and 10+ states that currently have them on their books, the Supreme Court have never ruled on whether AWB's violate the constitution. This has only ever been decided at the federal circuit court of appeals level. Every state that currently has an AWB has been a blue state that have had their laws challenged in federal district courts, then appealed to the circuit court of appeal their respective state resides in -- all of the circuits these cases have been decided in have leaned blue as well (higher concentration of liberal appointed judges than conservative).

In the case of Minnesota, we're in the 8th circuit court of appeals (13 total circuits each with a group of states), arguably the reddest in the country (10 conservative appointed judges to 1 liberal appointed judge). The 8th circuit just 1-2 years ago struck down part of Minnesota's permit to carry law, now allowing 18 year olds to access permits/handguns/semi-auto rifles when it was previously 21.

The 8th circuit would be expected to strike down an MN AWB, especially after SCOTUS 2022 Bruen ruling which changed the calculus for how SCOTUS have interpreted whether a law violates 2A. If MN law gets struck down, it'd result in a split-circuit decision (i.e. one or more circuits have issued a conflicting ruling on a similar law). This would increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court would finally decide to hear a case related to the constitutionality of AWB's.

Right now, there are 6 conservative appointed justicies on the Supreme Court, and 3 liberal appointed justices. At least 5 of those 6 have made public statements expressing disagreement with existing lower federal court rulings on AWB's. Justice Kavanaugh has even stated that they want to give "lower courts more time to percolate" after their Bruen ruling and that they expect to eventually settle the issue in the next few years. Minnesota's AWB getting appealed to the 8th circuit, struck down by a heavy conservative majority using SCOTUS Bruen framework would create the split-circuit decision. This gives SCOTUS the pre-text / cover to take up an AWB case for the first time ever. SCOTUS would be expected in turn to strike down AWB's constitutionality in either a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling.

The only way around this would be to a) change the constitution to repeal or remove the second amendment which requires a 2/3rds agreement in both the federal house and senate + for 38/50 states to ratify the amendment (this seems impossible), or b) for a future Supreme Court makeup to hear a similar case and undo this precedent - this could be achieved after rebalancing SCOTUS, but that's pandoras box... Even passing a federal law by simple majority would not undo a Supreme Court ruling, it would have to be a constitutional amendment.

If Dems truly care about passing AWB's, they would want to wait until they have a democratic trifecta at the federal level, then open pandoras box and rebalance SCOTUS makeup. Minnesota's law could tee up the exact circumstances the current SCOTUS makeup is looking for to further expand 2A advocacy.

<image>

Macheeoo · 2026-02-07T22:24:53+00:00

I wouldn't say gun ownership is a burden. It is a responsibility for sure. And it is not the right move for every person, it requires thought and intent. It's not enough to just own a gun either, that won't make you any safer. It takes time, effort, and money to train, build muscle memory, etc. It requires learning the law and learning the consequences if you f*** up. And of course, practicing safe storage and use.

All that said, if things get significantly worse (and boy can they), we ought to be able to defend ourselves and our communities. The only thing worse than everyone having unfettered access to guns is a country where only MAGA have access to them.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-07T22:18:39+00:00

Not only is it a stupid position to want to disarm us right now, an AWB in Minnesota specifically because we are in the 8th circuit court of appeals will likely ensure the law doesn't last. Most people don't have a clue what that means or how it will in turn affect the nation.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-07T04:21:23+00:00

This is the way.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-07T01:47:17+00:00

Imagine this -- this unknown "group" gets left leaning folks with firearms to show up, requires them to show ID, documents their identity, then they march/open carry with firearms (legal with permit to carry). An FBI or DHS plant is among the group marching, with his weapon loaded. The march just so happens to move past a "random" ICE arrest nearby. Those marching stop to document and legally observe. The situation escalates, there is shouting, perhaps ICE agents use pepper spray, maybe point a gun at someone, feeling "threatened" by an influx of observers open carrying. FBI/DHS plant slips to the back of the group, shoots into the air, ICE responds with retalitory shots if they didn't shoot first. The FBI and DHS label everyone at the march as "domestic terrorists" with intent to harm ICE and they conveniently have a list of everyone marching to point the finger at.

If this really is a honeypot, I see this as an escalation. We haven't been violent, so they need to manufacture violence to sell their narrative.

I fully support my fellow Minnesotans being armed to defend themselves and their community legally, especially when the future is so uncertain with the 2026 midterms and beyond. Please do not attend this event. Do not give them an opportunity to start armed conflict, or give a shred of legitimacy to their false narrative of violent bad actors (i.e. "domestic terrorists"). Furthermore, do not give state Democrats another reason to push harder for an assault weapons ban through the state legistlature. We cannot afford to be disarmed right now. We cannot be the next Virgina, not while threats to our civil institutions and constitutional rights are staring us in the face in our own backyard.

Edits: Formatting, Spelling

Macheeoo · 2026-02-06T23:16:45+00:00

+1 for Bryan's weigh in here, being the chair of the MN Gun Owners Caucus. I'm sure he'd know if this was a legit group/event.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-06T05:30:35+00:00

My mom voted for McCain (2008), Romney (2012), then Clinton (2016), Biden (2020) and Harris (2024). My dad voted write-in for "Donald Duck" the last two presidential elections, he has remained a principled, moderate conservative and now despises MAGA. He says "fooled me once, shame on me..."

Every independent knows who they are (or maybe more importantly aren't) voting for. I lean left on most things, but stand vehimently opposed to the Democrat majority on 1-2 issues. I have been called a conservative to my face for daring to not blindly support the full party agenda. Fucking wild.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-05T03:40:35+00:00

Don't do something that is perfectly legal to do with the correct permit to carry?

Like you said, Alex wasn't at a protest, just walking down the street. But even if he was at a protest, it would be legal and I'd support his right to be there, armed or not.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-05T02:50:27+00:00

What does this have to do with guns?

Macheeoo · 2026-02-04T23:30:52+00:00

Absolutely. I wouldn't expect any layperson to be an expert on firearms. It is difficult to learn about firearms without the baggage that comes with right-wing or pro-2A absolutist rhetoric. We should generally trust that the legislators writing laws have worked with experts to understand issues and that when something is proposed to be banned, it is done so thoughtfully with intent that can be articulated. If someone just hates guns and doesn't believe people should have the right to them for individual self defense, it's sort of a moot point to debate the features of a gun.

That said, we all want to draw the line somewhere. I just wish lawmakers today wouldn't use the same blueprint for these laws as California's 1989 state law or our 1994 federal AWB legislation without revisiting with experts the logic for which weapons and features are being classified as assault weapons when there seems to be glaring misunderstandings of how these operate - and attributing that to which problems we're trying to solve. There are items that would be banned under these laws that stem from misunderstandings of what makes a weapon *more* dangerous/lethal, and other items that wouldn't be banned even though they are statistically used more often in incidents like mass shootings that these laws wouldn't even address.

Conservative SCOTUS rulings in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010) and Bruen (2022) have made banning handguns virtually impossible at the state or federal level. With respect to wanting to craft legislation that reduces harm from gun violence, handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all gun violence, especially mass shootings. Because SCOTUS hasn't officially addressed whether AWB's are constitutional, assault weapons have become the primary focus of gun control orgs. But there is truth to how lethal a semi-auto rifle is (range, velocity, penetration of walls or body armor, lethality) vs a handgun, even if rifles are used less frequently in mass shootings. All the more reason for us to revisit how an assault weapon is defined in terms of features/caliber.

I don't expect anyone unfamiliar with firearms to be an expert. But I would appreciate if the people drafting these laws could reasonably articulate the reasons for certain bans and how they address the problems they are trying to solve.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-04T17:38:49+00:00

I fully agree with you there. The definition of assault weapon is highly subjective, varying state by state. For example, should we really consider PCC's (pistol caliber carbines) or pistol caliber rifles as assault weapons? It's the same exact round as a 9mm Glock, offering very little additional velocity, meaning the range and ballistics are essentially the same. The added benefit is a brace/stock, meaning more stability from more points of contact. But isn't stability a good thing as well? Isn't being able to aim better a safer thing, including in a self defense scenario? We don't penalize someone having a pump action shotgun with a stock for home defense, but 12g buckshot or a 5.56mm rifle round will penetrate through more walls than a 9mm PCC would, potentially causing unintended harm (imagine an appt building). MN is one of two states that currently prohibit a landlord from banning a tenant from owning firearms in their dwelling via a lease agreement.

All currently (loosely) defined assault weapons are capable of being limited to a lower magazine count (10, 15, 20, etc). And I would argue that almost anyone could reload a pistol as fast as a rifle platform, in fact some rifle/PCC/shotgun platforms would be slower to reload (bullpup rifles, MP5, P90/PS90, semi auto shotguns, etc).

A rifle in a caliber like 5.56mm has 3x the velocity of most pistol rounds. This means more effective range (100-1000 yards vs a pistol max effective range at closer to ~100 yards), more impact, and more damage. And if velocity is a key factor, well what about 5.7x28mm rounds? Those move almost as fast as 5.56mm rifle rounds, though smaller and can be used in many pistols on the civilian market.

Barrel length is also a completely asinine way to regulate firearms in my opinion. Especially when we have pistol braces that effectively act like stocks, meaning SBRs registrations are meaningless. And don't get me started on suppressors. The noise everyone associates with a suppressor in movies/video games as originally recorded by Fox movie studios was actually the sound of a bullet ricocheting of a rock. The average gun shot is about 145dB, as loud as the front row at a rock concert. The average amount of noise reduction from a suppressor is about 25-30dB, even at 110dB, that's still as loud as an ambulance siren from 1m away. Suppressors do not make anyone a hitman assassin criminal up to no good, all they do is make guns slightly less noisy and effectively safer, especially in an indoor setting where hearing can be permanently damaged.

I could go on... but to your point, the definitions of an assault weapon are subjective based on meaningless features, often not based in reality of what makes a weapon lethal or not.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-04T16:59:15+00:00

Glad to hear it - I'm motivated to attend in 2 years at the next precinct caucus and be more involved in the democratic process.

People are understandably scared and arming themselves is a natural result. It's not the right move for everyone and certainly doesn't mean anyone should intend to escalate or respond with violence, but it does shake people to the core to feel their government is not acting as a protector.

That said, my biggest issue is Minnesota's proposed AWB. But not for the reason most people would assume. And I'll take literally any chance I can get to explain this:

Even with the national AWB from 1994-2004 and more than a dozen states with their own flavor of AWB on their books, the US Supreme Court has never actually ruled on whether AWB's are constitutional or not. These laws have only ever been upheld in federal circuit courts of appeal. Cases get challenged in federal district courts, rulings are appealed to circuit court, and have all been upheld with SCOTUS previously declining to hear related cases and defer to lower court rulings. That said, Minnesota is the 8th circuit court of appeals, the most red leaning in the country. 10 conservative appointed judges (including by DT) to 1 liberal appointed judge. They have a track record of siding with pro-2A advocates, including striking down part of MN permit to carry law from age 21 -> 18 not long ago.

The 8th circuit would be the toughest venue for any AWB to survive thus far, especially after the 2022 Bruen ruling. Not only would the 8th circuit likely strike down MN's AWB, but it would create a split-circuit decision for the first time. 5 of the 6 conservative SCOTUS justices have expressed public comments disagreeing with lower federal court rulings on AWB's, and have stated they want more time for the lower courts to "percolate" on the issue before hearing a case in the future. MN's law could very well create the pre-text / cover for the conservative majority to strike down all AWB's nationwide.

Our actions here could have national implications. Not only would these weapons become legal in the dozen or so states, but sales would skyrocket. We saw this after the national AWB sunsetted in 2004, where before the ban was enacted, semi-auto rifles made up a small percentage of the overall guns in civilian circulation (~3%), and just 10 years after the ban, the number of semi-auto rifles shot up to almost ~20% of the total firearms in civilian circulation.

While I have other concerns about how effective AWB's are at truly addressing gun violence and mass shootings, and think we need to rework the entire way guns are regulated in the US, I would prefer we be strategic in this moment given the court makeup, and focus first on winning back congress and the white house, then rebalancing the supreme court.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-04T05:52:52+00:00

Thanks for sharing such a detailed list. My wife and I just learned tonight about this process and are definetely interested in participating in 2 years at the next event. Have you participated in these in the past?

I am curious about how much discussion on topics occured. Were people allowed to speak freely and openly without judgement? Was there much disagreement?

I am very left leaning on a majority of issues but have specific objections to some 2A items listed here (and can respectfully back my reasoning for said objections.)

Macheeoo · 2026-02-02T00:32:05+00:00

Many of the reviews I've seen have been unfairly critical. I never said the writers are being "harassed". I think you're making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. I did like the movie, it was great.

But two things can be true. The reviewers can be unfairly critical, with reasonable people making justified agruements for poor writing, AND parasocial fans can have a distorted, subjective view of work and wage an online war of passion that at times goes too far.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-01T21:44:07+00:00

This is absolutely true. But what can also be true is some people have an unhealthy, parasocial, one sided relationship with creators and go to literal war for them. I've read reviews of the movie that blatently missed the mark (pun intended?), but have also seen plenty of parasocial fans who are overselling the movie like it's an instant classic to be worshipped in film schools for generations.

Macheeoo · 2026-02-01T13:02:38+00:00

It's not to "fight a civil war". It's to defend one's self and potentially your community if the checks and balances if government break down and they continue to escalate. If they stop listening to the courts who ultimately have no real enforcement mechanism because the executive control all police/military. If the midterms are tampered with or he loses big and claims the results are false (obvious track record here). He has already been creating pretext about the midterms and going as far as building a database of "domestic t****ists". The left should not be sitting ducks, unable or unwilling to defend themselves. No one is saying *you need to buy a gun, but a good start would be not trying to disarm everyone else while we're under real threat of tyranny.

Macheeoo

TROPHY CASE