Saturday, January 31, 2015

Minnesota City Hall Shooting Leaves 2 Officers Hurt And Gunman Dead

Huffington Post

A gunman opened fire inside a suburban Minneapolis city building Monday night, injuring two police officers before authorities returned fire and killed him, the county sheriff's department said.

Hennepin County Sheriff's Office chief deputy Mike Carlson said the shooting happened around 7:15 p.m. while two officers were being sworn in at the New Hope City Hall.

The newly sworn-in officers and others were leaving the city council chambers when they encountered a man armed with a "long gun," Carlson said at a news conference.

The man opened fire and struck two New Hope police officers, Carlson said. Other officers immediately returned fire, killing the gunman, he said.


  1. Welcome back Mike. There has been a lot of movement in this event since the article you posted.
    Its been determined that the the now deceased assailant had a long standing beef with various government officials over several year.

    "The gun that Raymond Kmetz used to wound two New Hope police officers before he was fatally shot by other officers was illegally channeled to Kmetz by a straw buyer, Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek said Friday.
    Kmetz, 68, of Belle Plaine, was killed Monday night at New Hope City Hall after he opened fire with a Stoeger “pistol-grip” shotgun.
    Kmetz would not have been able to legally buy firearms because of a history of court-ordered civil commitments for mental health issues. He had tried to buy guns in the past, but had failed the required background checks, authorities say.
    Investigators also found two other shotguns — a Mossberg 500 and a Yimeng — in Kmetz’s car in the City Hall parking lot, Stanek said. The serial numbers on all three guns had been shaved off, but Hennepin County crime lab technicians were able to restore them. They found that the guns had come from the Duluth Police Department, which had confiscated them.
    In mid-July, that department sent them to K-Bid of Maple Plain, an online auction site with which it contracts. On Aug. 21, Kmetz put in a bid and bought all three guns for $675.22, Stanek said."

    "Federal law requires that every gun bought online be shipped to an “FFL” — a federal firearms licensee clearinghouse. The three guns were sent to an FFL in Princeton, Minn., called the Full Metal Gun Shop. A 42-year-old man from Golden Valley who was an acquaintance of Kmetz picked up the guns, Stanek said. A background check was done on him. Documentation for the gun transfer shows the names of both Kmetz and the alleged straw buyer.
    Troy Buchholz, owner of the gun shop, said in a phone interview Friday night that he questioned the buyer about why Kmetz’s name was on the K-Bid auction form. The buyer told him he had used that name to protect his privacy online.
    Buchholz ran a background check on the straw buyer, which came back with no problems. On the form, the buyer checked a box that said he was buying the guns for himself. He was alone, didn’t appear to have been coerced into buying the guns and paid for them, Buchholz said. Everything appeared legal.
    “I’ve sold at least 30 guns over eight years to people who used a different name when they bid online for them,” Buchholz said. “I just feel sick that I sold a gun that was used in what happened in New Hope. I can’t put it into words.”
    Buchholz said he’s thankful that the officers wounded by Kmetz will recover. He added his mother-in-law was a New Hope police reserve officer.
    The alleged straw buyer, who has confessed to investigators that he bought the guns on Kmetz’s behalf, was arrested Thursday, Stanek said. Stanek learned Friday night that the county attorney’s office wasn’t going to file charges, but he said he has forwarded the case to the U.S. attorney’s office for review."

    1. So it's OK to sell a gun to a person you know is not using his real name? And that does not suggest to the seller something isn't right? Your point just proves how poor the gun laws are.

    2. So it's OK to sell a gun to a person you know is not using his real name?

      The background check was conducted on a person using his real name, and the guns were given into his possession. The name used on the auction form has no legal relevance.

    3. Sandra did you read the same article I did?...The seller was the Duluth Police Dept through K-BID not the FFL....

    4. Considering that it seems to mimic what we do here, since most likely don't use real world names here. The buyer isn't necessarily off the hook, since the ever efficient ATF could charge him with lying on the 4473, when he said that the guns were for him.

    5. Straw purchasing is a different problem than selling guns with no background check.

      Thanks for the update, ss. I'm glad I didn't tag this one "dangerous lawful gun owners." You know how Kurt hates it when I jump to wrong conclusions.

    6. There was actually a similar event several years ago up my way. A man with a beef over losing his liquor license pulled a gun and was quickly put down by the two deputies and one trooper that was in attendance.
      Some have tried to use the event as a reason to prevent permit holders from being able to carry on city or county property, but the argument didn't carry any weight because the shooter had just finished serving his time for two felony convictions, so needless to say, he didn't have a permit.

    7. You know how Kurt hates it when I jump to wrong conclusions.

      Not at all--and a good thing for me, too. If that were true, I would be condemned to a near-permanent state of acute unhappiness.

    8. "Considering that it seems to mimic what we do here, since most likely don't use real world names here."
      I think there is a difference between selling deadly weapons and talking about them.

    9. And at the time of the sale, he produced valid identification and filled out a form 4473, which he apparently lied on when he said he was buying the firearms for himself. And he passed the NICS check, and the sale was completed.
      There is still the potential to charge the guy for lying on the 4474, if the DOJ is willing to go to the trouble.

    10. So why aren't all sorts of gun crimes like lying on this form not charged?

    11. "So why aren't all sorts of gun crimes like lying on this form not charged?"

      That is a question that gets asked all the time by gun rights advocates Sandra. Often, the Federales defer to the states when it comes to prosecutions, such as for felon in possession of firearms or ammunition violations.

      "The Syracuse study found the number of federal weapons prosecutions fell from about 11,000 in 2004 to about 6,000 under the Obama administration in 2011 -- and ticked up to 7,770 in 2012.
      The GOP letter also cited data from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent -- or 76,000 -- were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally.
      "If the prosecution of people lying on forms is really a priority for the president, then all he has to do is say, 'I want my federal law enforcement officials to prosecute these kinds of cases,'" former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Fox News. "Obviously there is a different level of priority given to these type of crimes in this administration compared with other administrations."

    12. First you say the feds defer to the States fro prosecution, then you claim it's the feds who aren't prosecuting. Am I missing some thing?

    13. There are times when there are laws against something on both the federal and state level. For example, felon in possession of a firearm. Most states have such a law on their books, and its also a federal felony. Most of these cases get prosecuted at a state level. In this case, the felon that was in possession is dead, and it had to be prosecuted at a federal level because it involves his lying on the ATF Form 4473 when he said he was buying the guns for himself.

    14. Seems the blame game for who prosecutes is just an excuse for gun crimes not being prosecuted. And pro gun people seem satisfied with that. Sorry, I won't accept that, especially when it could be fixed if not for the pro gun people lobbying against procedures, regulations, and laws that could fix that bureaucratic confusion.

    15. "I won't accept that, especially when it could be fixed if not for the pro gun people lobbying against procedures, regulations, and laws that could fix that bureaucratic confusion."

      Well Sandra, who exactly do you think should prosecute committing a federal felony? That is what happened when he lied on the federal form. Somewhat akin to expecting a county prosecutor to charge someone for lying on a federal tax return.
      Gun rights advocates often throw this issue up for all to see because not enforcing the law just encourages people ignoring it. Even Mike has said in the past that he has no problem with not prosecuting attempted purchases by prohibited persons as long as the sales aren't successful.

    16. You just got done blaming away why cases don't get prosecuted and seem fine with that, a gun loon attitude who could care less about the innocent people dying while you play word games.

    17. On the contrary Sandra, gun rights advocates frequently call the DOJ to task for their low numbers of prosecutions for these types of crimes.
      Its a very common comment when someone comes up with a new gun law to try when at present they are prosecuting less than 1% of the violations that they catch.
      I think that if you lie on the form, you should be prosecuted for it just as it promises right on the form. And since its a federal form covered under federal law, its federal jurisdiction.

    18. But that's not what you said, so on with your lies, distortions, and diversions.

  2. And it appears that the DOJ has elected to actually charge this guy. Will wonders ever cease....

    "The man who supplied guns to a friend who later shot two New Hope police officers was charged by the U.S. attorney’s office Wednesday with making false statements on his background form.

    Michael Garant, 42, of Golden Valley, picked up three guns at a Princeton gun shop for Ray Kmetz, who later shot two officers after a swearing in ceremony at the City Council chambers last month, the charges say.

    Both officers survived, but Kmetz was quickly shot and killed by other officers.

    According to the criminal complaint and documents filed in court, Kmetz, 68, was the highest bidder for three shotguns in an online auction in Maple Plain, which were actually bought by Garant in August at Full Metal Gun Shop in Princeton. He informed the gun shop owner that he used the alias “Ray Kmetz” during the online auction to hide his true identity.

    Garant produced a driver’s license to the store owner to verify his identity. A National Instant Criminal Background Check was performed on Garant, and was returned “clear.” One of the forms completed by him as part of the background check contained the following question:

    “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.”

    Garant responded “yes” to this question by checking the corresponding box. He paid $659.29 in cash for the three shotguns, one of which was a Stoeger Model 2000 12-gauge shotgun bearing serial number 915191."

  3. Another shooting at Byerlys in St. Louis park, luckily no one was killed but the shooter. Another shooting in Bryn Mawr (a quit neighborhood just 2 miles from downtown Mpls.) 5 dead. Seems Minnesota is catching up to other States with mass shootings. New for Minnesota, but following a deadly national trend.

  4. You mean the shooting in Bryn Mawr that occurred two years ago? And a shooting where no one was shot? I know we've talked about other events here in Minnesota here. Some that I've brought up I believe.
    Hint, a shooting where no one is shot isn't really a mass shooting.


      To bad you don't know what you are talking about. 5 dead only last fall.

    2. "To bad you don't know what you are talking about. 5 dead only last fall."

      If you look a little lower you'll see this date,

      September 27, 2012 Q13 News .

      Here is another article to confirm the date,

      "Police: Shooter Among 5 Dead In Mpls. Office Shooting
      September 27, 2012 5:03 PM "

      A bit more than last fall.

    3. Hey Mr, BS, I never mentioned a date, or a time limit, you did, and I don't accept it. It still shows an increase and it's not like it was even 5 years old. What else you got Mr. dishonest diversion? .

    4. Not to mention you claimed there was no such shooting at all.

    5. "Hey Mr, BS, I never mentioned a date, or a time limit, you did, and I don't accept it."

      Sammy, you mentioned two events that you claimed are mass shootings in Minnesota. One was actually a mass shooting, though you insisted it happened just last month, twice. You were a couple of years off. Instead of saying oops, sorry, I was mistaken, you put on your tap shoes and tried to come up with a way to make it look like it wasn't a mistake.
      The second event wasn't a mass shooting by anyone's definition since the only person who died was the shooter who committed suicide.
      So you are now trying to assert an increase in mass shootings in Minnesota using only one data point that happened two years ago. Do you have any data previous to that to show that the one event you cite is an increase?

    6. I always have to remember I am dealing with lying gun loons. Of course it's an increase because those shootings have not happened before in Minnesota with this kind of frequency. What else you got?

    7. The next mass shooting that took place prior to the one that happened in 2012 was in 2005 at the Red Lake Indian Reservation. Have any others you can contribute? You only gave one data point, and there are now two, but it still does nothing to support your assertion that they are increasing in Minnesota.
      You just not hearing of any before previous to that doesn't prove anything. Provide data, or perhaps be honest and say you don't know. Either would be a refreshing change.

    8. I already said it liar. Shootings like that never happened before, so it is an increase. Guess you don't understand English.

    9. "Shootings like that never happened before, so it is an increase. "

      Again Sammy, just because you haven't heard of it and don't want to check, doesn't justify your claim. I even helped you by contributing a second data point. All you would need to do is find another mass shooting between say from 2009 to 1012 to show there is actually an upward trend.
      Glad we could settle this. You take care, and I look forward to the next discussion.

    10. You have proven your dishonesty in debate. I checked it, you are wrong. Glad I could settle that for you, I understand your try at dishonesty and diversion. My link said it all. By now.