A bill to address the mythical \”gun show loophole\” (HF 953) has been introduced in the House by Rep. Paymar. It attempts to address a problem that…well doesn\’t exist, except in liberal talking points. The bill was due to be up for debate this Friday at 10:30. But then Rep. Paymar, perhaps knowing that the word was out, asked for the hearing of the bill to be rescheduled. So the committee meeting was cancelled….no doubt because our political masters didn\’t want the serfs getting uppity and voicing their displeasure at the bill.
However, Rep. Paymar makes this an annual crusade and it\’s very likely that this bill will return. Probably with little warning so it can be slide through the cracks, so it\’s worth learning about this bill now. Vigilance every day keeps our political \”masters\” away.
Supposedly this bill is mostly to address the \”gun show loophole\”, which I\’ve addressed before.
Secondly, the gun show loophole is a myth. Essentially what they are bitching about is private property. At gun shows, Federally Licensed Firearms dealers (FFLs) have to do the same paperwork they would have to in their own shop. What people are referring to by the “gun show loophole” is things like one private party selling one of his firearms to another private party. And banning something as simple as a father selling a firearm to his son is a pretty slippery slope as it opens all sorts of doors to infringe upon other private property rights.
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. A January 2009 Star-Tribune article says that the Twin Cities’ homicide problem is largely one of uncontrolled gang/drug activity. Anyone who can sell or purchase illegal drugs can acquire a gun in that illegal transaction. This is a black market transaction, not a legitimate sale by law-abiding citizens. Don\’t be fooled, this bill does NOTHING to prevent the former, but everything to impede the latter.
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.
Of course, proponents try to justify all this by claiming the bill will make it illegal to transfer handguns and \”assault weapons\” to criminals. Of course what they don\’t mention is this is already illegal (Minn. Stat. 609.66 subd. 1f)! So really all this does is make life difficult for law-abiding citizens. It does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Of course if they had paid attention to studies done on similiar California laws, they\’d already know that!
This bill also wastes valuable law enforcement resources by removing the purchase permit exemption for carry permit holders. Those that possess a carry permit are already required to undergo rigorous background checks in order to carry a firearm. So current law takes the common sense approach that they don\’t need to have their local police chief run a new background check just to purchase a firearms, since they\’ve already been checked out to carry. By removing this exemption you require local police departments to expend valuable resources that essentially duplicate work already done by the county Sheriff.
In addition, this bill effectively creates a gun registration system, and allows those records to be released to all authorities, even for use in \”civil\” cases. This makes the system ripe for abuse by anti-gun government officials. This bill is nothing more than official harassment of law-abiding gun owners.
[Crossposted at True North]