Skip to comments.Gun debate will return to Capitol
Posted on 02/25/2008 3:10:59 PM PST by jdege
Gun debate will return to Capitol
By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune
February 24, 2008
Minnesotans would find it easier to claim self-defense if they shot someone but harder to buy a pistol in the first place under dueling gun proposals before the Legislature.
While the bills have attracted little attention so far amid high-volume debates over transportation, taxes and health care, they demonstrate that long-running battles over gun control haven't ended.
Other Minnesota legislators want more restrictions on guns.
They've proposed requiring people who buy pistols or assault weapons from individuals or gun shows to pass background checks, just as people must now do when buying the weapons from sporting goods stores or other federally licensed dealers. Proponents of the bipartisan legislation in the House and Senate estimate that 40 percent of sales involve buyers whose backgrounds are not checked.
The bill would ban private sales of pistols or assault weapons unless the buyer or seller was a federally licensed dealer, or used a licensed dealer to transfer the weapon. It would apply to sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
These are two of the six "Republican" House members who just voted to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the DFL transportation spending bill. (Six billion more down the rathole, while our highways and bridges are falling apart).
SD41's endorsing convention is Saturday, March 8th. Erhardt, at least, has a strong challenger for the endorsement.
We'll see what happens.
After my earlier unfortunate comments and subsequent flaming on another thread regarding firearms, allow me to state unequivocably that we need to defeat any bill which restricts the rights of gun ownership.
It is clear that this is not really about plugging the "gunshow loophole that doesn't exist" this is about restricting the transfer of firearms except where records are kept. Can a father give his son or daughter grandpa's war trophy he brought back from some foreign land? If I ever moved to California it would be illegal to own the M1 Paratrooper Carbine that my father-in-law left me. It turns out it has too many evil points (bayonet lug, semi-auto, collapsible stock, detachable magazine that can be larger than 10 rounds.......evil, evil, evil.)
It is clear that this is not really about plugging the "gunshow loophole that doesn't exist" this is about restricting the transfer of firearms except where records are kept.
MN law currently requires, in addition to the federal NICS check, a MN background check. This can occur in one of three ways. The seller can submit a "Report of Transfer" to the buyer's sheriff or chief of police, and hold the gun until they respond, or the buyer can present a purchase permit or a carry permit, to indicate that the background check has been performed.
Current law forbids the sheriffs or police chiefs to maintain records of approvals for "Reports of Transfer". And, of course, if the buyer has a permit, the sheriff or police chief is not involved in the transaction at all, and so cannot maintain any records.
And - this is required only when the seller is an FFL.
The proposed law would remove the exception for non-FFLs - all sales would have to either submit a "Report of Transfer" or transfer through an FFL. The options for bypassing the report for permit holders would be removed. And the sheriff or police chief would be required to maintain records. The waiting period for a response from the sheriff or chief is increased from five to seven days, and is fixed unless waived. (Current law says held until a response is received, or until five working days elapses. Changed language says held until seven days after the sheriff or chief receives the report, unless waived.)
Pistols and "assault weapons" must be transferred through an FFL. If the recipient fails the NICS (or NICS is down) the FFL must perform a NICS check before transferring it back to the original owner. If the original owner fails the NICS check (or NICS is down), the FFL is required to retain the firearm, and to transfer it to his local sheriff or police chief within 24 hours. (And what happens if NICS is down for a weekend?)
Plus - only FFLs will be allowed to sell at gunshows.
A nice little package - and Ron Erhardt, district 41A, and Neil Peterson, district 41B, signed on as co-authors.
I have been around a while and have seen your earlier posts...What made you change your mind?
The realization that we might one day need the 2nd amendment to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, especially given what is happening in our political system today. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.