Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:03 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 
 Reply to 953 email 
Author Message
 Post subject: Reply to 953 email
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:30 am 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:29 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Have Gun Will Travel
This is the response I got from one person on the committee (my email to him is also below)

Thank you for your comments and concerns about HF #953. This is an unwarranted restriction on our rights. It seriously erodes our second amendment rights by placing unreasonable restrictions on the transfer of firearms and it will shut down gun shows as we know them.

The bill will severely curtail legitimate trade in firearms by law-abiding citizens and adds fees to the permit to purchase applicant and the dealer. It eliminates the exemption for the transfer of antique firearms and sadly, it appears that it will make it illegal to give someone a weapon as a gift.

I will be opposing this bill and fight this overly regulatory legislation.

Ron Shimanski

State Rep. Ron Shimanski
District 18A
227 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-1534
800-920-5882

Sign up for my legislative email update at
www.house.mn/18A

>>> 3/3/2009 5:50 PM >>>
I find it interesting that are those within our state who feel so totally inadequate when it comes to handling a firearm that they deem it their duty to restrict the lawful purchase of lawful firearms to the point that the state would keep files on such sales. As the law abiding holder of a Minnesota carry permit I am further embarrassed that my right to purchase a hand gun would be put under more scrutiny because Michael Paymar is cowering in his closet at night afraid he might be shot. Show me where a Minnesota permit holder has been convicted of any gun crime.

Please vote against House File 953 !

_________________
Never leave home without it!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1013
Location: North Suburbs
Here's what I got from Paymar this morning. What a load of bullshit:

Quote:
Dear Advocate:

Thank you for contacting me regarding House File 953. As the author of this legislation, I want to clearly dispel the misinformation that surrounds this proposal.

This bill is good policy. Since this legislation was first introduced last year, I have worked with opponents and proponents to resolve any outstanding issues and allay any concerns that law abiding gun owners and sellers have about the intent of the bill. I also worked with law enforcement officials who are concerned about this loophole in our background check law. HF 953 addresses many concerns brought forth by sportsmen, gun dealers, and privacy rights advocates. Let me tell you how this bill does NOT infringe upon your second amendment rights and let me tell you what it does do.

Most importantly, every individual who can legally purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon in Minnesota will still be able to DO so if this bill passes. This bill simply closes an unintended loophole in our background check provisions. Under current federal and state laws, persons convicted of a felony, those convicted of a domestic assault, and people with SERIOUS mental health problems are not allowed to purchase or possess pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. Under current law, anyone purchasing a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons must have a background check to ensure they aren’t disqualified from possessing this kind of firearm. The loophole is, that people can purchase pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons from unlicensed sellers without obtaining
a background check.

House File 953 DOES the following:

HF 953 DOES keep the current law in place. The same requirements that buyers now follow when they buy a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon from a licensed dealer, like Gander Mountain, would be applied when they buy a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon from an unlicensed seller, at a gun show, or on the internet.

HF 953 DOES help enforce the legislative intent of current law.
Individuals who have lost their eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons still have avenues in the current system allowing them access to guns. HF 953 simply requires a background check. This is already standard for most gun sales in Minnesota, when a sale is conducted by a licensed dealer and includes pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons.

HF 953 DOES help law enforcement. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association supports this bill as do individual law enforcement agencies. Police officers recognize the danger of allowing people who are ineligible to possess a pistol or a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon to purchase these weapons without a background check.
Additionally, law enforcement agencies currently charge a fee for conducting background checks when an application is submitted to carry a pistol. However, law enforcement is not allowed by statute to charge a fee for conducting “permit to purchase” background checks. This is an important task for law enforcement agencies and they are asked to conduct thousands of checks per year. HF 953 sets a maximum fee at cost, plus $5.00.

House File 953 DOES NOT do the following:

HF 953 DOES NOT establish gun registration. The background check, set forth in this bill, only determines if a buyer is legally allowed to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. It does not require buyers to register individual purchases with law enforcement. It uses the existing FBI instant background check system, which does not connect a purchase of a weapon to a purchaser. After conducting an instant background check on a gun buyer, the FBI is required by law to destroy its record within 24 hours. Only the licensed dealer maintains the record of the sale. Existing law allows people to voluntarily leave a record of a gun sale with local police--this bill does not change that.
The second paragraph in the bill (which in legislative language is called a repealer) also does nothing to change existing law - it is only the removal of a duplication of sec. 11 subd. 8.

HF 953 DOES NOT affect hunters. Private sales of rifles, like kitchen table trades, are not affected by this legislation. Sales at gun shows would be treated the same way as sales of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons from licensed dealers at sporting goods stores.

HF 953 DOES NOT affect transfers among family members.

Let me reiterate, HF 953 does not affect law abiding Minnesotans from purchasing these weapons. Only people who are already disqualified from buying pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons would be prevented from making a purchase if a background check determined they were ineligible. Most people who sell pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons at gun shows are licensed dealers-this bill does not affect them.

It is unfortunate that misinformation about HF 953 continues to be sent out to law-abiding Minnesotans. I have worked with law enforcement on behalf of crime victims for over twenty-five years and my only intent with this bill is to make our communities safer. I urge you to read the bill and draw your own conclusions. Reasonable people can disagree, but I think that you will find that this bill in no way infringes upon your second amendment rights. I have no illusions that criminals will continue to get their hands on pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. It is my hope, that this bill (even in a small way) will plug a loophole in our current law, so we can keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Sincerely,


Michael Paymar
State Representative


Michael Paymar
Chair, Public Safety Finance Committee

Minnesota House of Representatives
543 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, MN 55155
office: 651-296-4199
rep.michael.paymar@house.mn


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:25 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
macphisto wrote:
Here's what I got from Paymar this morning. What a load of bullshit:


I bet Paymar has trouble seeing over that growing nose of his.

_________________
http://www.eckernet.com
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:23 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
What a steaming pile of misinformation. Let's examine a few of his points:

Quote:
HF 953 DOES NOT establish gun registration.


Section 12, Subd 10a certainly seems to indicate otherwise.:

Quote:
6.1 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.


Quote:
HF 953 DOES NOT affect hunters.


It does if they hunt with handguns or anything the government may want to call an 'semiautomatic military-style assault weapon', a label which has been applied to anything with "over X round magazines" in the past (I don't recall the specific number used). Technically this could eventually cover the sale of a normal Ruger 10/22.

Quote:
Let me reiterate, HF 953 does not affect law abiding Minnesotans from purchasing these weapons.


Let's see... 'affect' means:

Quote:
affect: to produce an effect upon: as a: to produce a material influence upon or alteration in


Seems to me that causing me to not be able to sell a firearm without having to engage a 3rd party and pay that 3rd party for the service would classify as 'affect'.

I don't think it is a loophole we need to plug... it is the stream of bullshit coming out of Paymar and his ilk.

BB


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:13 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:30 pm
Posts: 197
Location: Minneapolis
Quote:
Quote:
HF 953 DOES NOT establish gun registration.


Section 12, Subd 10a certainly seems to indicate otherwise.:

Quote:
6.1 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.


Excuse my ignorance but aren't FFL holders already required to keep records of their sales for some period of time like 7 years or indefinitely? I vaguely recall a the father of a buddy of mine (an FFL holder) mention something like this.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:07 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 95
Location: SE suburbs of St Paul
After sending off the emails to my rep and committee chaiman Lesch
urging them to oppose HF953, I couldn't resist sending this to Rep Paymar
(thanks Prof Olson for providing some of the info I cited)
Quote:
Rep. Paymer

Let's be honest, HF953 will not reduce homicides or violent crime.
This is just another bill aimed at harassing legitimate purchases of
firearms by law abiding citizens and adding fees to the purchase.

There is no "gun show loophole". Criminals do not obtain the the guns they use in the commission of their crimes from public venues such as gun shows. You don't have to take my word for it. A 2008 empirical study by University Criminologists found no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.
In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms finds that less than 1 in 50 guns acquired by 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.

Also by repealing subdivision 9 of 624.7131 making a valid carry permit no longer able to be used as a transfer permit wastes valuable law enforcement resources by requiring background checks on people who have already passed background checks (and more) in addition to forcing new transfer permit fees on people who have already paid $100.00 in fees in order to get the carry permit.

And while you say this is not a registration bill, subdivision 10a of your bill
states; Record keeping. All reports of transfer shall be maintained in a manner,as determined by the Department of Public Safety...
Allowing a government agency to maintain records of firearms transactions is de facto registration.

Any perceived "gunshow loophole" would already be covered by no less than four current Minnesota statutes: (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.

This is, plain and simple, a gun control bill. Gun control laws have been proven nationwide and globally to be a dismal failure in reducing crime. You cannot pass a law to prevent crime. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. If one could prevent or reduce crime by passing a law then we would have no murders since homicide is a crime.

As a concerned citizen who treasures constitutional rights and the rights of a free people to engage in legitimate, legal sales of private property I ask that you withdraw this bill.

Thank You for your time,
Respectfully,


I'll be interested to see if he responds.

_________________
Life Member-National Rifle Association
Life Member-Ctizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Minnesota Permit to Carry holder
Member-North American Hunting Club
Veteran - US Army


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:46 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 pm
Posts: 965
Location: North Minneapolis
Good letter, but don't hold your breath.

_________________
It is about Liberty!

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chris


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:15 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
That's a great letter but could use some proofreading. a spell check probably won't catch repeated words or phrases.

Again, a good letter.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:45 am 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:14 pm
Posts: 84
My email to Rep Paymar:

Dear Representative Paymar:

I am writing in opposition to HF 953, your gun registration bill. As a constituent of yours, I am disappointed in your position on this.

I know you claim that this bill is not a gun registration bill, but it clearly states:

6.1 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 looks, smells and walks like gun registration.

I know that you claim that this bill closes "the gun show loophole." However, you must know that no such loophole exists. Current Minnesota statutes: (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 are all already in place.

Please drop your support for this bill.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group