I wrote Rep. Kath regarding HF953 (requiring private sales of Handguns and "Assault" weapons to be done through an FFL) Here is the response I got in the mail.

Dear Matt:

Thank you for contacting me about HF 953, which relates to closing the "gun show loophole." I appreciate youy sharing your thoughts.

As I understand this issue, currently federally licensed firearm dealers are required to conduct background checks on potential purchasers, but no such requirement exists for private sellers of firearms. Since gun shows often attract numerous private sellers, there is a concern that sales conducted at those events result in firearms being purchased by people who are currently prohibited from owning a firearm. Therefore, it is argued that sellers at gun shows should be required to abide by the same requirements the federally licensed firearm dealers must comply with, such as conducting background checks on potential buyers.

Of course, as you probably know, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own a firearm, and rejected the view that the Second Amendment is a collective right and applies only to service in a "militia" such as the National Guard. This ruling means that the legislature must act carefully whenever it attempts to regulate firearms.

However, at the same time, the Supreme Court seemed to leave open the possibility of state's being allows to enact reasonable firearms restrictions. It would appearJustice Antonin Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, indicated as much when he wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." This may give Minnesota the authority it needs to enact reasonable firearm regulations in order to combat gun violence.

In am cmmitted to safer communities, but at the same time we must be cautious and move forward within the parameters laid out by the court. COnsequently, i want to assure you that I will carefully review any firearms-related legislation that comes before me to ensure that it strikes the appropriate balance between the court's dictates, and the need to keep our communities safe.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to contact me again on this or any other issue of interest to you. I value your input.

Sincerely,
Kory Kath

So, to me, this response came across as "I/We will do anything I/we can to restrict firearms, so long as it does not BLATANTLY violate the supreme courts ruling."

Does anyone have any recommendations as far as sending a response to this letter?

This is an opinion, not a fact.

I'd challenge anyone hanging their hat on that opinion to answer:
1) Have they ever been to a gun show?
2) Can they back up this claim with factual numbers?

Yup. I'd invite the rep along to the next gun show, and see how many private sellers there are, and how many private sales there appear to be.

But that's secondary -- I'd reiterate that this is a gun registration bill, and not a gun show bill, and make it clear that a vote for it is a vote for gun registration.

Rep. Kath appears to be another uninformed or willfully ignorant weasel.

Oh, I'm not so sure.

I get the feeling Rep. Kath is possessed of zero knowledge of the contextual politics regarding registration, save for the party line, but isn't necessarily sold. The letter doesn't sound particularly canned.

Also, notice that it isn't antagonistic of any particular group, didn't weigh "gun rights advocates" against "concerned citizens", but only the Court and the Legislature. It didn't give away their consideration of might-have votes next election as do most Dems' responses. Kath might be worth the trouble to try and bring around.

I can't see the harm in seeing whether this is curable ignorance or incurable cupidity.

There lies the challenge. She seems to be trying to understand "reasonable regulaltion" (I read her to imply firearm restriction). She needs to understand that there are already a plethora of regulations and laws. She needs to be educated to the fact that what is necessary is enforcement of the existing law(s), not the institution of additional new laws that will have no affect in making "citizens safer", and are as likely as not to make only criminals safer.

Scott Hughes wrote:



"She" is a "he".

It a weaselish non-answer answer. Hit him up on the registration aspects of the bill, and remind him that it applies to all sales, not just those at gun shows.

OOPS, my bad Thanks for the correction westhope

Scott Hughes: wrote:



That's OK, I voted for the other guy in the election last fall. He (Democrat) won in a long time Republican district after Connie (she) Ruth (Republican) decided not to run.

The least you could have done is PM him so he could make the change with .......

Never mind he doesn't check his PM's.

Actually I do, not always, but often. I get a few PM's but not all that many (and I'm so lonely ; ).

It's all good guys

Well, I was going to re-write Representative Tim Faust's letter but I see that SoMN40S&W must be from the same district - Oh Wait - it's just a canned letter from our DFL guys in St. Paul.

Come on. Grow a pair!

Someone from the Leg is reading this. Pass on the word that what they are pretending to do is not enough! They represent us in the State of Minnesota. They are not representing Washington D.C. here in Minnesota!

I'd tell him that MN statute already requires that a private seller either:

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.

Because of this, only criminals and idiots sell guns to strangers without checking for a purchase or a carry permit.