I think Joel was right


This bill is not about gun shows.

After hearing that the response letter i got was in fact the canned DFL response , I formulated a response. Probably way too bitter but it gets the point across......Please give me some feedback before I send it out.

Rep. Kath

Thank you for sending me the canned DFL response to HF 953 regarding the "gun show loophole." I have talked to several other concerned gun owners who received the same letter from their representative. I took the time to write YOU, not the DFL party. If I wanted THEIR view, I would have contacted THEM. I am extremely disappointed in the lack of effort and thought that you have apparently given this issue. There are a few parts of this bill that I would like to clarify since you apparently asked the DFL party what this bill means.

First, 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. And virtually all of that tiny number comes from “strawman purchases” made by accomplices who CAN pass any background check


Second, 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; (2) 609.53 – Theft-once-removed by acquisition from a “fence;” (3) 609.66 sibd. 1c – Receipt from an accomplice/strawman; and (4) 624.7141 – Transfer to an ineligible person. The transfer to an ineligible person statute requires that a private seller of a firearm do one of the following:



1. checks to make sure the buyer has a carry permit, or
2. checks to make sure the buyer has a purchase permit, or
3. submits a report of transfer to his local police chief so that he can do a background check, or
4. exposes himself to significant legal liability if it should turn out that the buyer is not legally allowed to possess the gun.


The third point I would like to clarify is that this bill affects ALL private sales, not just gun shows as "you" implied in your canned DFL response. This would make it illegal for a father or mother to give their child a handgun or semi automatic weapon (which are both legal for hunting in this area) as a gift.



The final, and what I feel is the most important point, is that this bill is nothing but a gun registration bill (not so cleverly) disguised as "closing the gun show loophole" The following is a quote directly from the proposed legislation:



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.



That is gun registration in it's purist form.



I understand that you are a junior member of the DFL party and may feel the need to vote party lines to advance within the party, but please do not let your fellow DFL'ers do your thinking for you as this will most certainly result in losing votes when you are up for re-election. I also urge you to do what "your" response letter indicated you would, which is carefully review any gun legislation that comes to you. Please note that I will continue monitoring your voting record and if needed, I will be contacting the NRA and other organizations to make sure that all of the people in your constituency are aware of your anti-gun record come next election.



I urge YOU to respond to this letter with YOUR views on this specific bill as well as anti-gun legislation in general.

Bravo! Well written! (Except I think you meant to type "purest," not "purist." )

Well, I like it.

I know it is harsh, maybe too harsh for a first term rep.??? My concern is that I do not want to offend this guy and hurt our cause. Just want it to be a wake up call.

Hey, this person is your representative. If they didn't want to hear from constituents, they should not have run. Pointing out how the response you initially got was incorrect or non-factual is not a personal affront, unless as the representative, you knew it was incorrect or non-factual when you sent it.

snap. someone got beat down in that letter. I LIKED it as well! well done.

I love it. Plain language and to the point.

Like MTinMN said


I'd be willing to bet that Rep Kath hasn't even read the bill.

MOST of the Reps don't read the bills, because the Reps really don't have the skills or legal training necessary to understand the real meaning of the language in most Bills.

Because of the drafting process the Bills are hard to understand, and are usually impossible to understand unless the reader is familier with the context, and how a Bill would affect existing stated, federal and local laws.

They just rely on what their friends tell them.

So I sent him a slightly toned down version of that letter and got a response back from him within 15 minutes. I apparently got his attention!!

From Him:

Matt - First off, thanks for your email and the information that you
provided in your initial email.

My letter was sent to assure you and others in my district that are
concerned with this piece of legislation that I will be purposefully
vetting the piece of legislation if it comes to committee and that I
will ensure you a fair process once I hear the language. At the time you
wrote to me, I had not been given the language and to this date the bill
has not been given a hearing. Furthermore, it will not be given a
hearing on the House side and it was because members, including myself,
raised too many questions from the emails that I was sent by community
members like you. We held 6 meetings about issues raised in emails like
yours. Your concerns were taken VERY seriously by me and were presented
to Rep. Paymar and Chairwoman Hilstrom. I hold the same belief as you,
that the bill raises many questions on gun registration and the rights
of law abiding citizens to sell and own guns. It is my concern and that
is what I presented in our meetings.

Once again, I am sorry that I offended you by my letter, but rest
assured that I took your comments very seriously and will continue to do
so. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Thanks, Kory Kath


So it is still a weaselly answer in my opinion, it still does not tell me his views on gun legislation. He says that it "concerns him" but who knows, is it because there may still be a loophole??? I have sent a follow up email asking for his views on specific items: a MN AWB, right of law abiding citizens to carry guns for SD, Castle Doctrine, Stand your ground, etc.

I also told him that my pent up frustration that I may have taken out on him comes from multiple contacts I have made to reps. who most likely do not even read my email before sending me a response like this. Just goes to show though, every once in a while we need to get a little extreme to stand out. I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Kath is aware that people notice impersonal/thoughtless canned letters. Maybe he will think twice about sending them out again, he is still young and maybe there is a shot....(quite naive, I know)

Very well done. (For those new to this, this sort of thing is the reason why, when outspoken advocates for self-defense rights show up at the Capitol, they tend to get listened to.)

Good job. It is important to contact all your legislators and express your point of view. When presented with the facts, you will see their true colors, by their actions. Keep yourself and your legislators informed. Sometimes it does pay off. Be polite, but persistent.

Bravo


Great work, if I am reading the response right, they are going to kill it before it gets a hearing.


Bravo

That may be a bit optimistic. The plan may be to:

a: have it go through the Senate, first, then to the House, and/or
b: put it through as an amendment to another bill, knowing that the single subject rule is only enforced on pro-gun bills, and this one ain't that.