Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:54 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Here it is "gun show bill" HF953 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:11 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Quote:
Dear Mosin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding House File 953. As the author of
this legislation, I want to clearly dispel the misinformation that
surrounds this proposal.

This bill is good policy. Since this legislation was first introduced
last year, I have worked with opponents and proponents to resolve any
outstanding issues and allay any concerns that law abiding gun owners
and sellers have about the intent of the bill. I also worked with law
enforcement officials who are concerned about this loophole in our
background check law. HF 953 addresses many concerns brought forth by
sportsmen, gun dealers, and privacy rights advocates. Let me tell you
how this bill does NOT infringe upon your second amendment rights and
let me tell you what it does do.

Most importantly, every individual who can legally purchase a pistol or
semiautomatic military-style assault weapon in Minnesota will still be
able to DO so if this bill passes. This bill simply closes an unintended
loophole in our background check provisions. Under current federal and
state laws, persons convicted of a felony, those convicted of a domestic
assault, and people with SERIOUS mental health problems are not allowed
to purchase or possess pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault
weapons. Under current law, anyone purchasing a pistol or semiautomatic
military-style assault weapons must have a background check to ensure
they aren’t disqualified from possessing this kind of firearm. The
loophole is, that people can purchase pistols and semiautomatic
military-style assault weapons from unlicensed sellers without obtaining
a background check.

House File 953 DOES the following:

HF 953 DOES keep the current law in place. The same requirements that
buyers now follow when they buy a pistol or semiautomatic military-style
assault weapon from a licensed dealer, like Gander Mountain, would be
applied when they buy a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault
weapon from an unlicensed seller, at a gun show, or on the internet.

HF 953 DOES help enforce the legislative intent of current law.
Individuals who have lost their eligibility to purchase a pistol or
semiautomatic military-style assault weapons still have avenues in the
current system allowing them access to guns. HF 953 simply requires a
background check. This is already standard for most gun sales in
Minnesota, when a sale is conducted by a licensed dealer and includes
pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons.

HF 953 DOES help law enforcement. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police
Association supports this bill as do individual law enforcement
agencies. Police officers recognize the danger of allowing people who
are ineligible to possess a pistol or a semiautomatic military-style
assault weapon to purchase these weapons without a background check.
Additionally, law enforcement agencies currently charge a fee for
conducting background checks when an application is submitted to carry a
pistol. However, law enforcement is not allowed by statute to charge a
fee for conducting “permit to purchase” background checks. This is
an important task for law enforcement agencies and they are asked to
conduct thousands of checks per year. HF 953 sets a maximum fee at
cost, plus $5.00.

House File 953 DOES NOT do the following:

HF 953 DOES NOT establish gun registration. The background check, set
forth in this bill, only determines if a buyer is legally allowed to
purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. It
does not require buyers to register individual purchases with law
enforcement. It uses the existing FBI instant background check system,
which does not connect a purchase of a weapon to a purchaser. After
conducting an instant background check on a gun buyer, the FBI is
required by law to destroy its record within 24 hours. Only the
licensed dealer maintains the record of the sale. Existing law allows
people to voluntarily leave a record of a gun sale with local
police--this bill does not change that.
The second paragraph in the bill (which in legislative language is
called a repealer) also does nothing to change existing law - it is only
the removal of a duplication of sec. 11 subd. 8.

HF 953 DOES NOT affect hunters. Private sales of rifles, like kitchen
table trades, are not affected by this legislation. Sales at gun shows
would be treated the same way as sales of pistols and semiautomatic
military-style assault weapons from licensed dealers at sporting goods
stores.

HF 953 DOES NOT affect transfers among family members.

Let me reiterate, HF 953 does not affect law abiding Minnesotans from
purchasing these weapons. Only people who are already disqualified from
buying pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons would be
prevented from making a purchase if a background check determined they
were ineligible. Most people who sell pistols and semiautomatic
military-style assault weapons at gun shows are licensed dealers-this
bill does not affect them.

It is unfortunate that misinformation about HF 953 continues to be sent
out to law-abiding Minnesotans. I have worked with law enforcement on
behalf of crime victims for over twenty-five years and my only intent
with this bill is to make our communities safer. I urge you to read the
bill and draw your own conclusions. Reasonable people can disagree, but
I think that you will find that this bill in no way infringes upon your
second amendment rights. I have no illusions that criminals will
continue to get their hands on pistols and semiautomatic military-style
assault weapons. It is my hope, that this bill (even in a small way)
will plug a loophole in our current law, so we can keep dangerous
weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Sincerely,


Michael Paymar
State Representative


Michael Paymar
Chair, Public Safety Finance Committee

Minnesota House of Representatives
543 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, MN 55155
office: 651-296-4199
rep.michael.paymar@house.mn

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:14 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Gee, I hope Paymar wasn't injured too badly when his pants burst into flame after writing that.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:14 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Uptown Minneapolis
Wow. What a liar.

_________________
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:17 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
Heh. My email must have been too harsh. I didn't get a response from him. Just as well, I'd only be harsher pointing out his lies to him.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:22 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Quote:
HF 953 DOES NOT establish gun registration. The background check, set
forth in this bill, only determines if a buyer is legally allowed to
purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. It
does not require buyers to register individual purchases with law
enforcement. It uses the existing FBI instant background check system,
which does not connect a purchase of a weapon to a purchaser. After
conducting an instant background check on a gun buyer, the FBI is
required by law to destroy its record within 24 hours. Only the
licensed dealer maintains the record of the sale. Existing law allows
people to voluntarily leave a record of a gun sale with local
police--this bill does not change that.
The second paragraph in the bill (which in legislative language is
called a repealer) also does nothing to change existing law - it is only
the removal of a duplication of sec. 11 subd. 8.


https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... ssion=ls86
Quote:
6.1 Subd. 10a. Record keeping. All reports of transfer shall be maintained in a manner,
6.2as determined by the Department of Public Safety,
that facilitates efficient crime gun
6.3tracing and ensures that the records are available for all lawful purposes, including being
6.4available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for purposes of civil or
6.5criminal law enforcement investigations.


He thinks this language protects us
Quote:
<br />
<a id="bill.0.11.0"></a><a id="pl.5.29"></a> 5.29 Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 624.7132, subdivision 8, is amended to read:<br />
<a id="pl.5.30"></a> 5.30 8. <b>Report not required.</b> If the proposed transferee presents a valid transferee <br />
<a id="pl.5.31"></a> 5.31 permit issued under section
<statute_ref>624.7131</statute_ref> <s>or a valid permit to carry issued under section </s><br />
<a id="pl.5.32"></a> 5.32 <statute_ref><s>624.714</s></statute_ref>, the transferor need not file a transfer report. <br />


Only until next year when they try to remove that "loophole". And that no-one will get permits to acquire because they will now cost $100+ just as P2Cs do and there is no upper limit to the price tag they can put on permits to acquire.

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:25 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 1060
Location: Savage, MN
Quote:
Dear Mosin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding House File 953. As the author of
this legislation, I want to clearly dispel the misinformation that
surrounds this proposal.

I'm going to wait to read that until after I eat my lunch, and maybe even wait until my lunch is safely through my stomach.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:30 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Quote:
Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association supports this bill as do individual law enforcement agencies.
Would some nice person please call the chiefs association and ask, politely, when and why they gave their support to "Representative Paymar's gun registration bill," please . . .

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:45 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
joelr wrote:
Would some nice person please call the chiefs association and ask, politely, when and why they gave their support to "Representative Paymar's gun registration bill," please . . .


Mary at MN Chiefs knows of no endorsement and is looking into any official statement.

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:52 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Mosin wrote:
joelr wrote:
Would some nice person please call the chiefs association and ask, politely, when and why they gave their support to "Representative Paymar's gun registration bill," please . . .


Mary at MN Chiefs knows of no endorsement and is looking into any official statement.
Cool. I'd love to expose yet another phony endorsement of Paymar's gun registration bill.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:03 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
Paymar's nose is growing again. :shock: :)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:09 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:11 am
Posts: 572
Location: West of Hope, MN (S. Central MN)
From Paymar's letter to Mosin:

Quote:
HF 953 sets a maximum fee at
cost, plus $5.00.


I wonder what the "cost" will be determined in Ramsey county. They will probably need to have deputies do it on overtime too. They will probably need several addition copy machines too.

Why do they need $5.00 more than the actual cost?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:30 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Quote:
HF 953 DOES NOT affect hunters. Private sales of rifles, like kitchen table trades, are not affected by this legislation. Sales at gun shows would be treated the same way as sales of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons from licensed dealers at sporting goods stores.


Only until the superintendent of the BCA adds more firearms to the Semi-automatic-military-style-assault weapon list.

Quote:
624.712 DEFINITIONS
...
Subd. 8.Included weapons.

By August 1, 1993, and annually thereafter, the superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall publish a current authoritative list of the firearms included within the definition of "semiautomatic military-style assault weapon" under this section. Dealers, purchasers, and other persons may rely on the list in complying with this chapter.


I'm tired of picking apart his lies. The burden is on Paymar to show what result we can expect from these new fees, administrative costs, and legislation. This is what history tells us and what every legislator should be made aware of.

Registration Doesn't Reduce Crime

Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime. Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.
Prof. John Lott, “Gun Licensing Leads to Increased Crime, Lost Lives”, L.A. Times, Aug 23, 2000

Most police do not see the benefit. “It is my belief that [licensing and registration] significantly misses the mark because it diverts our attention from what should be our common goal: holding the true criminals accountable for the crimes they commit and getting them off the street.”
Bob Brooks, Ventura County Sheriff, “When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives”, Firing Line, September 2001

Criminals don't buy at gun shows
Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, February 2002

Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”
James D. Wright, U.S. Dept of Justice, The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons 2 (1986)

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:40 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Paymar's letter uses the fees paid by carry permit holders for background checks/licensing as an excuse to argue that purchase permit holders should pay for background checks/licensing.

I think a far more reasonable way to go would be to take the position that since the actual costs of such checks for permit holders are (after five years) so modest, they should simply be borne by the sheriffs departments as part of their mission to serve the public safety, just as the costs of purchase permits are covered by the local PDs and SOs.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:08 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Quote:
Since this legislation was first introduced last year, I have worked with opponents and proponents to resolve any outstanding issues and allay any concerns that law abiding gun owners and sellers have about the intent of the bill.


Simply untrue.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:17 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:43 am
Posts: 371
Location: Anoka, MN
Quote:
HF 953 DOES NOT affect hunters. Private sales of rifles, like kitchen table trades, are not affected by this legislation. Sales at gun shows would be treated the same way as sales of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons from licensed dealers at sporting goods stores.

HF 953 DOES NOT affect transfers among family members.


It doesn't? So the fact that we both have to apply for transfer permits (with no limit on cost; Ramsey County's will be about $500) then wait 7 business days (9 to 11 actual days) isn't going to affect hunters, private sales, or family member transactions?

And it's not 'gun registration' because the transfer is simply filed as "Joe transferred firearm(s) to Jane on such and such date" but doesn't list the firearm?

I call SHENANIGANS.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group