I know Sen. Scheid as a family friend from years ago.
Although I'm not in her district, whenever I have written her she has always returned a considered response and not a form letter.
Here's the text of a letter I sent her re SF1165.
Most of the text is shamelessly plaigerized from Mr. Ecker, Professor Olsen and other sources on this forum.
But why re-create the wheel when others have already done it so well?
___________________________________________________________
Hi Linda,
I was very gratified after writing you in 2005 regarding the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act that you voted against party line and for a citizen's natural right to protect herself with the best tool at hand, including firearms.
Today I am writing you regarding another serious threat to that right.
A bill to address the mythical “gun show loophole” (HF 953 and SF1165) has been introduced in the House by Rep. Paymar and in the Senate by Sen. Prettner Solon. It attempts to address a problem that doesn’t exist!
Supposedly this bill is mostly to address the “gun show loophole”.
The gun show loophole is a myth.
Essentially what they are concerned about is private property. At gun shows, Federally Licensed Firearms dealers (FFLs) have to do the same paperwork they would have to in their own stores. What people are referring to by the “gun show loophole” is things like one private party selling one of his firearms to another private party. And banning something as simple as a father transferring a firearm to his son or daughter is a pretty slippery slope as it opens all sorts of doors to infringe upon other private property rights.
According to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms less than 1 in 50 guns acquired by criminals come from gun shows or private resales.* A January 2009 Star-Tribune article says that the Twin Cities’ homicide problem is largely one of uncontrolled gang/drug activity. Anyone who can sell or purchase illegal drugs can acquire a gun in that illegal transaction. This is a black market transaction, not a legitimate sale by law-abiding citizens. Don’t be fooled, this bill does NOTHING to prevent the former, but everything to impede the latter.
*Butterfield, Fox (July 1, 1999). "Gun Flows to Criminals Laid to Tiny Fraction of Dealers". The New York Times.
Minnesota statutes already contain FOUR (4) provisions to cut off “black market” transfers. They are: (1) 609.52 – Theft by the criminal himself; (2) 609.53 – Theft-once-removed by acquisition from a “fence;” (3) 609.66 subd. 1c – Receipt from an accomplice/strawman; and (4) 624.7141 – Transfer to an ineligible person.
Proponents try to justify all this by claiming the bill will make it illegal to transfer handguns and “assault weapons” to criminals. Of course what they don’t mention is this is already illegal (Minn. Stat. 609.66 subd. 1f)! So really all this does is make life difficult for law-abiding citizens. It does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
This bill also wastes valuable law enforcement resources by removing the purchase permit exemption for carry permit holders. Those that possess a carry permit are already required to undergo rigorous background checks in order to carry a firearm. So current law takes the common sense approach that they don’t need to have their local police chief run a new background check just to purchase a firearm, since they’ve already been checked out to carry. By removing this exemption you require local police departments to expend valuable resources that essentially duplicate work already done by the county Sheriff.
In addition, this bill effectively creates a gun registration system, and allows those records to be released to all authorities, even for use in “civil” cases.
This makes the system ripe for abuse by anti-gun government officials. Think gun confiscation from homeowners attempting to protect themselves from looters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The facts show that gun registration has never reduced 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)
This bill is nothing more than official harassment of lawful gun owners.
Anything that impedes the lawful transfer of property among law-abiding citizens especially grandfather to father to daughter is an over-reaching infringement by government into the private property rights of the citizenry.
SF1165 should be soundly defeated in your Judiciary Committee.
I trust adherence to principle will once again guide your vote.
Best Regards,
