I will not vote for the Paymar amendment

We're going to take a run at fixing this tonight (I'm not on the committee).

Thanks for your email. I agree with you and will be opposing the provision which creates disparities between the counties.

From Rep Mary Kiffmeyer:


From Rep Marty Siefert:


From Rep Lara Brod:

Heckuva job, Chris. Trade the cow for the bag of beans . . . and then have the beans amended away from you.

Thanks for the detail.. (That from Rep. Haws)

>>> "XXXXX XXXXXXXX" <xxx@xxxxxxxx.org> 4/28/2009 5:21 PM >>>

Thank you very much for your reply:

First, it would create "metro" zones in which the regulation of firearms
could, and would, be substantially different, which would gut the state's
pre-emption provisions.

Second, Rep. Paymar's amendment, offered in committee, is a gun registration
provision and would have no true positive effect. To wit:

* First and foremost, gun shows are not a primary source of guns for
criminals. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on "Firearms Use by
Offenders" found that fewer than 1% of U.S. "crime guns" came from gun
shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns
from any retail source.

* The bill will cause FFL's to violate federal law. The 1994 NICS statute
only allows dealers to access the NICS system regarding actual proposed
sales from their business inventory not as a "favor" to a private seller.

* Regulating the private sale of firearms will not prevent criminals from
obtaining firearms.

* Rep. Paymar's Amendment will only affect law-abiding gun owners --
that's his intention. Criminals will not subject themselves to this
requirement. Increasing costs and creating further obstacles for law-
abiding gun buyers will not slow the illicit trade in firearms.

* There are no lawful "unlicensed dealers." Any person who engages in
the business of buying and selling firearms as a course of business is
required by federal law to obtain a federal firearms license. People
who "engage in the business" without a license may already be arrested
and convicted of a federal felony-whether they "engage in business" at a
gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.

Update:

In a heavily anti-gun committee, the final vote was 12-11 for the Paymar Amdt. However, Rep. Dill tabled the bill.

The issue is much larger than stopping uncased and unloaded. The issue is letting Paymar's amdt pass, giving anti-gun legislators and CSM a victory--it emboldens them. (Paymar would attach his bill to any gun bill, not just the current vehicle).

I appreciate the support we received from the committee members that opposed Paymar's admt. However, I take issue with 3 republican members that should have been there. And of that 3, one member in particular intentionally walked. I have talked to republican leadership about this specific issue in the past.

This was a vote that republicans, with the help of their DFL colleagues, should have won. I should also note that two DFL members, not typically pro-gun, took a supportive stance: Hilty (opposed) and Simon (passed).

Despite Paymar's amdt being attached, there are a number of legislative maneuvers to prevent it from passing the House. NRA will oppose the omnibus with Paymar's provisions attached.

Let me know if you have any questions. And, Joel, I look forward to your questions too.