Paymar's "gun Show Loophole" bill rears its ugly head again

[nyffman]

Speaking for the collective, we're proud of you too.

[plblark]

Thanks Dean.

I encourage people to crib liberally as well as post their efforts here. A good turn of phrase or a good idea can inspire people to write or make it easier for them to do so.

The other idea is this: Now that no action has been taken, THANK the committee. Let them know we're not only getting out ahead of them but we're PAYING ATTENTION to what they do.

Here's what I just sent:

I see from an article in the Star Tribune online that no vote was taken on Rep. Paymar's HF 2960. While I would prefer to see it voted down soundly EVERY time it appears, I'm doubtful that Rep. Paymar, or Ms Martens will get the message.

I thank you for your attention on this issue and encourage you to oppose the myriad of ways Rep. Paymar will try to get this bill passed, or attached.

This bill and is truly a hydra and needs to be watched carefully.

You may recall that last session Rep Paymar had a very similar though much farther reaching bill that failed to pass committee after committee. He eventually ended up trying to add it to a DNR Omnibus funding bill in the Finance Committee (a committee which, conveniently, does not take public testimony) before resorting to trying to add it as an amendment on the house floor.

Thanks again,

[DeanC]

I encourage people to crib liberally as well as post their efforts here.

Yeah, feel free to steal from mine as much as you want.

One thing that could be improved is if we could get links directly to the actual studies we cite.

Martens & Paymar cite an ATF study and then just link to the atf.gov website which is lame as hell.

[EJSG19]

So far, 0 comments. Do you think they'll be approving many of our comments?

not sure, but I bet they just got at least 5 comments against the article. Maybe its some slow moderation until they get an Anti to respond with something positive.

Hey, sure enough, an Anti's comment was second on the page. There are 3 comments up now. Funny how an Anti responded right after a pro-rtkb person. Coincidences are fun.

[plblark]

updated / different article
http://www.startribune.com/local/86627222.html

Gun show bill gets debate, but no vote

One man at the hearing pulled a semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm pistol out of a case, telling legislators he had bought both of them at a gun show without undergoing a background check.

Star Tribune

Last update: March 5, 2010 - 1:04 PM

A proposal to require background checks for guns sold at gunshows drew some vigorous testimony at a Friday hearing -- and one man who pulled out the guns he said he'd bought without a check -- but in the end, legislators took no action.

A plan by Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, to close what gun opponents said was a legal loophole drew sharp exchanges between supporters and advocates of gun rights. Though the 90-minute hearing ultimately left the proposal's status in doubt, the testimony featured a former Minnesota attorney general, gun victims and even the criminal justice coordinator from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office.

One man at the hearing pulled a semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm pistol out of a case, telling legislators he had bought both of them at a gun show without undergoing a background check.

Much of the debate centered on whether Paymar, who has acknowledged he has never attended a gun show, could conclusively show that guns bought at gun shows were being used in significant numbers to commit crimes. Opponents said that despite the emotional testimony Friday from crime victims, there was little evidence that the guns used in the crimes had been bought at gun shows without background checks.

"No one testifed about any links," said Joseph Olson, a Hamline University professor.

Rep. Dave Olin, DFL-Thief River Falls, and a former criminal prosecutor, agreed. "I don't believe the testimony that I heard at this meeting was anything but. . .hearsay that any gun show was related to any gun case," he said.

But former Minnesota Attorney General Warren Spannaus said Paymar's legislation made "good common sense," and that many of the opponents' arguments were unchanged from the 1970s, when he served as attorney general. William Swenson, a senior advisor to Bloomberg's criminal justice coordinator, said federal studies had shown a clear link between gun crimes and guns bought at gun shows and said New York City remained one of the nation's safest big cities because of aggressive gun laws.

"There's something very wrong with this picture," Jerry Dhennin, a former Anoka County Sheriff's Department investigator, said as he held a Springfield 9mm semi-automatic pistol for the legislators to see. "I bought [this] without a background check."

While many sellers at gun shows are licensed and are required to submit any buyer to a background check, Paymar and other supporters of the plan said there is no law in Minnesota that prevents someone from simply showing up at a gun show and selling a gun without a background check. "These private sellers walk around [gun shows] with assault rifles over their shoulders," said Joan Peterson, a spokesperson for Protect Minnesota, a group supporting Paymar's plan. "What is the price tag in lost lives?"

Rep. Paul Kohls, R-Victoria, said he was unconvinced the law was necessary, and said it was likely to infringe on the rights of gun owners. "This is simply an attempt, I think a misguided attempt, to stop guns," he said. "This bill. . .will not stop the illegal transfer of guns."

[westhope]

one man who pulled out the guns

I wonder if the security there checked to determine if he had a P2C and had notified the capitol security? Did anyone ask?

[plblark]

This bill will be in front of the SAME committee AGAIN tomorrow.

here's the e-mail I sent:

When I said this bill was like a Hydra, I suspected it would reappear in a different guise, not back again before the same committee. I see that is is on the agenda AGAIN for Wednesday, March 10.

I would like to reiterate that this bill is a solution in search of a problem and is being advocated more in spin than in facts.

The facts are:
.7% of criminals surveyed said they purchased their guns at gun shows. There's no mention if that was before or after they became ineligible to posses guns.

The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are FFL holders.

Even private parties are already prohibited by current MN law from selling to prohibited persons.

I encourage you to look VERY carefully at the definition of "Gun Show" in this bill and to envision all the places this bill would apply that are not what the public considers "Gun Shows"

This law is merely a harassment and stepping stone bill that doesn't solve anything but puts burdens on the law abiding without affecting the criminals.

Once again, I thank you for your attention and urge you to oppose Rep Paymar's HF 2960.

Thank you,

HEre's the full committee:
rep.john.lesch@house.mn, rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn, rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn, rep.kory.kath@house.mn, rep.paul.kohls@house.mn, rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn, rep.dave.olin@house.mn, rep.michael.paymar@house.mn

I did NOT send it to Paymar or Lesch as they conspired to pull it when it didn't have support.

rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn, rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn, rep.kory.kath@house.mn, rep.paul.kohls@house.mn, rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn, rep.dave.olin@house.mn,

We should also focus on supporting Olin as he's a Dem who is on our side on this issue. Letters of thanks for past support are always nice

[westberg]

Is there plans for showing up at this meeting? Do we need to show support against it, last time it sounds like there was quite a few for it at the meeting.

[plblark]

I e-mailed the 5 people on the committee who were on our side asking what we could do. Only Cornish responded.

He said: Show up. Wear signs.

I will be working and unable to attend so the e-mails are my contribution.

[westberg]

I e-mailed the 5 people on the committee who were on our side asking what we could do. Only Cornish responded.

He said: Show up. Wear signs.

I will be working and unable to attend so the e-mails are my contribution.

Is there a time?

[plblark]

Rep Paymar's HF 2960 bill is once again being heard in the Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee.

The meeting is being held WEDNESDAY, March 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM in room 300S State Office Building

The State Office Building is located near Rev MLK JR Drive Southwest of the Capitol Building, East of Rice Street, and South of University avenue.

Parking permits can be arranged in G-10 of the Administration Building

Last time, there were several people in the audience in support of the bill. We need a presence there in opposition. Professor Olson reports he has class and will not be able to attend. The Good news: I have a job. The Bad news: I will be unable to attend. That means I'm asking you to take time from your busy life and once again oppose Paymar's persecution of law abiding gun owners.

As background information, please watch the video of the Friday, March 5, 2010 session HF 2960 comes up at approx 22 minutes in

Michael Paymar also published an editorial on the MinnPost Online site which would be worth your time to read if only to oppose the distortions and lies contained therein.

[princewally]

John Caile, GOCRA's experienced communication's director will be there to testify. We have the votes to defeat this bill.

All we can do with extensive testimony is slip up. So keep cool and quiet while waiting for the vote.

Be sure to call and email our friends on the committee to remind them that we want and appreciate their support.

Gun owners, please email these representatives tonight, and call them tomorrow. They have done the right thing so far, and we need to thank them, and encourage them to keep doing right.



Representative Ron Shimanski
651-296-1534
E-mail: rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn




Representative Kory Kath
651-296-5368
E-mail: rep.kory.kath@house.mn


Representative Paul Kohls
651-296-4282
E-mail: rep.paul.kohls@house.mn

Representative Jenifer Loon
651-296-7449
E-mail: rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn




Representative Dave Olin
651-296-9635
E-mail: rep.dave.olin@house.mn


Suggested message:



Representative,

Thank you for voting against HF2960, authored by Representative Paymar, last week. He is reintroducing the bill again Wednesday in the Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee. I urge you to oppose it again. As you know, the bill would impose unreasonable costs and administrative hurdles on law-abiding gun owners, while demonstrably doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

I also urge you to oppose Representative Paymar's HF1396, which, by including domestic pets in orders for protection, could easily have the effect of permanently depriving a citizen of his civil rights for petting a dog.

Sincerely,

Your Name



Here is some additional background on the bills:

From GOCRA spokesman, blogger and instructor John Caile:




Rep Paymar's HF 2960 is being spun as a "Gun show Loop hole" bill.




This latest attempt to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and the mentally disturbed" cannot possibly have any effect on violent crime.



The issue, according to the bill's proponents, is that private citizens who attend the shows are able to buy and sell firearms from each other without such a check. They contend that legions of inner city gang members, terrorists, and the mentally disturbed are lining up to get into every gun show in America.



But the bill's supporters seem unable to grasp that all that would be necessary to avoid such a check would be...to walk outside to the parking lot and make the exchange there, or just agree to meet elsewhere!



More to the point, study after study of violent offenders has shown conclusively that they do NOT get their guns from gun shows anyway. The ATF itself notes that a tiny 0.7% of all guns used in violent crimes ever even started out at a gun show (and even these were not bought by the felons themselves - many were purchased legally and then later stolen).



Minnesota's own premier criminal and lethal force research facility, the Force Science Institute at Mankato State University, concurs. With the FBI, the Institute did a five-year investigation of 800 incidents involving criminals who got into shootouts with police officers -- in other words, the most violent criminal population. They discovered that "contrary to media myth, not a single firearm in the study was obtained at a gun show" - offenders got 99% of their guns either by stealing them themselves, or by purchasing them in ILLEGAL transactions off the street.



The University of Maryland study ("The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths," September, 2008) also found "no evidence" that gun shows have any effect on homicides, or even suicide. They further stated that "tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths," in direct contradiction of the claims made by the anti-gun contingent.



Such sweeping surveillance of Americans may sound just fine to those who hate and fear guns, but even if the state required a background check on every single private sale of firearms (not just at gun shows, but everywhere) it would not stop illegal sales. And besides, the bad guys always have one card left to play: the "straw purchase," where they enlist someone with a clean record (usually a gang member's girlfriend) to buy the gun for them. They do this now, and there is no foreseeable way to stop it, other than vigorous prosecution of those who sell to criminals and the mentally prohibited; participating in a "straw purchase" is already a felony.

But what about those "mentally ill" types we hear about? The problem is that many states have privacy laws prohibiting access to mental health records. In any case, the vast majority of people with mental problems have never been treated - so no background check will flag them. The disturbed Virginia Tech shooter bought his gun completely legally, at a gun store, where he passed the background check.



Even those with a record of mental problems can always find someone to act as a "straw purchaser." Columbine shooters Harris and Kliebold simply had a girlfriend buy their guns for them. And even if a background check had been conducted on her, she would have passed with flying colors.



Gun control zealots often use the bogus "if-it-saves-one-life" argument. But the bottom line is that "feel-good" nonsense like Representative Paymar's "gun show" bill will not save a single life - and policy should be based on reality, not fantasy.




And from the NRA:


Representative Paymar's House File 1396 includes a provision that would allow a court that issues a domestic abuse protective order to prohibit the respondent from having any contact with a PET OR COMPANION ANIMAL OWNED, POSSESSED, OR KEPT by a party protected in the order. This new provision could have serious consequences for Minnesotans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.




Under Minnesota law, a person who is convicted of violating an order of protection may not possess a pistol for three years from the date of conviction. However, if the court finds the person "used" a firearm in any way during the commission of the violation, the court may prohibit the person from possessing any firearm for ANY period longer than three years or for the remainder of the person’s life. In the latter case, the court shall also order that the firearm be summarily forfeited. Because this bill would allow a court to order the respondent to have no contact with the pet or companion animal, such an order could be violated merely by inadvertent contact with a "protected" pet. Thus, depending on the circumstances of the contact, a person could be subject to these firearms prohibitions for contacting the pet or companion animal, whether or not the contact resulted in injury or trauma to the animal.




Any number of relatively innocent or unintentional scenarios could easily be imagined for such contact. Even intentional contact with a pet that is the subject of a protective order is clearly too low a threshold for a person to lose the ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. The same considerations simply do not apply to contact with animals as apply to contact with people. While this bill was originally designed to protect animals, it would also provide unintended and unjustified deprivation of people’s Second Amendment Rights.

[westberg]

I will be there, it's one thing to call and send emails, I think it drives home the point if people are showing up in person. I know that's not an option for most here during the week, but if you can try and make.

[hunter722]

I got an e-mail from MN GORCA about this and they have some stuff from a couple of reports that look to be good things to help nail this bill. I can't find links to the stuff they claim including one from some outfit at Mankato State. Anyone have the links to those studies?

[westhope]

Probably the links are from this place. You can search there.


http://www.forcescience.org/

Dr. Bill Lewinski was my martial arts instructor. Best one I every had. He was working on his Masters / Ph D and first black belt at the time I knew him. (1969)