Paymar wants to reintroduce ban on private sales

[JJ]

FYI,
As you all are making fools of yourselves; an amended version of HF285 was heard this morning:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/H0285DE6.pdf

Sec. 7. [624.7133] GUN SHOWS; TRANSFERS OF PISTOLS AND
6.22 SEMIAUTOMATIC MILITARY-STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS.
6.23 Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, "gun show" means the
6.24 entire premises open to the public for an event or function, that is sponsored and has the
6.25 primary purpose of facilitating the purchase, sale, or offer for sale, of firearms at which 25
6.26 or more firearms are offered for transfer, and ten or more persons are offering one or more
6.27 firearms for transfer. The "entire premises" includes, but is not limited to, parking areas
6.28 and areas open to the public that are used by attendees during the event or function.
6.29 Subd. 2. Transfers; proof of eligibility required. (a) No person shall transfer a
6.30 pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon at a gun show unless the transferor
6.31 or the transferee is a federally licensed firearms dealer except as provided in this section.
6.32 (b) When two parties, neither of whom is a federally licensed firearms dealer,
6.33 desire to transfer a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon at a gun
6.34 show, the transferee must present the transferor a valid permit to purchase issued under
Sec. 7.
7.1 section 624.7131 or a valid permit to carry a pistol issued under section 624.714 prior to
7.2 completing the transfer.
7.3 Subd. 3. Exclusion. This section does not apply to transfers of antique firearms as
7.4 defined in section 624.712, subdivision 3.
7.5 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective August 1, 2013."

So correct me if I'm wrong. I read that as if you want to buy a firearm from a private party, literally on the property of a gun show, you just need to show a PTP or PTC.

Is that different than what most of us do already?

No, I believe the issue lies in the fact that this latest amendment can now become a vehicle for even more onerous amendments/verbiage to be slipped in.

[Rip Van Winkle]

So correct me if I'm wrong. I read that as if you want to buy a firearm from a private party, literally on the property of a gun show, you just need to show a PTP or PTC.

Is that different than what most of us do already?

As I understand it, Paymar watered down the bill so as to get it passed out of his committee and to the House floor. He intentions now are to load all the bad crap back into the bill via he amendment process.

ETA: Has the Senate pulled any of the same shenanigans with the companion bill?

[Heffay]

I actually don't have a problem with the amendment. In fact, it seems like a good idea.

[xd ED]

I actually don't have a problem with the amendment. In fact, it seems like a good idea.

I would not be upset if it went no farther than what's presented.
But I suspect some proof of a pre-sale check will slip in, along with the rest of the side-lined crap before it's over.

The camel's nose is seldom the problem.

[mrp]

I got more

You can't make this stuff up:

Someone made it up. She never said it.

Both of California's Senators in one Photo:

That's from a satire site.

When you post such easily discredited BS as the truth, don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

[Hmac]

I actually don't have a problem with the amendment. In fact, it seems like a good idea.

I feel the same, however I do fear that it's the camel's nose just a little bit more under the tent.

[Heffay]

I actually don't have a problem with the amendment. In fact, it seems like a good idea.

I feel the same, however I do fear that it's the camel's nose just a little bit more under the tent.

If we are afraid to take even a single, logical step forward, then we're really not contributing to the problem.

[Heffay]

When you post such easily discredited BS as the truth, don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

He's never let facts get in his way before. Why would he start now?

[Holland&Holland]

I actually don't have a problem with the amendment. In fact, it seems like a good idea.

Welp, that would cost you your thread though. Just saying...

[BigBlue]

I actually don't have a problem with the amendment. In fact, it seems like a good idea.

Even if it did pass as-is, with no additional crap piled on, it is still a bad thing. Not for the impact of the specifics in the bill, but for the follow-on effect. They pass this, which will do nothing different than what anyone does today, and is totally unenforceable, and next year they come back and say "gee, that didn't fill all the gun violence issues, so we need to expand it from just gun shows to everywhere. Or they say "we need to have some paper trail to prove it happened". Or whatever. The point is, it is one more chess piece moved against gun rights in the bigger game of full elimination of firearms.

They cannot be allowed to advance ANYTHING or gun rights in MN dies a death by a thousand cuts.

Anyone can plainly see there would be no actual benefit (to gun violence) from this law. The ONLY thing (beyond the above master plan) that it would accomplish is to put a feather in their cap to say they 'did something'. Politics is a very, very complicated chess game, not a football game.

BB

[connsolo]

I think we all know that this is just a foot in the door for some more restrictive amendments, including but not limited to universal background checks. Basically everything we've seen so far will be stuffed into this one, if for no other purpose than political theater.

[Thunder71]

Flame suit on.

If I need a permit to purchase for these items from a store by state law, why should anyone else be exempt? Don't most of us require this already anyway?

I'm not for additional restrictions, but we're already restricted by this anyway to an extent, this (to my understanding) just ads the requirement to gun shows. If we can get some pro gun measures with it I'd be OK with this I guess. It's not a compromise when it's already something we are more or less required to do anyway.

[Heffay]

Ok, so we're not even willing to accept something that doesn't infringe at all because of fear of other things getting passed?

In other words, the community has no desire to help keep the guns out of the wrong hands. That's just positioning to make you seem reasonable, as if you're actually interested in participating in the process.

No wonder it's so hard to accept what anyone has to say around here. We say we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but actually refuse to do anything about it.

[Holland&Holland]

Flame suit on.

If I need a permit to purchase for these items from a store by state law, why should anyone else be exempt? Don't most of us require this already anyway?

I'm not for additional restrictions, but we're already restricted by this anyway to an extent, this (to my understanding) just ads the requirement to gun shows. If we can get some pro gun measures with it I'd be OK with this I guess. It's not a compromise when it's already something we are more or less required to do anyway.

Right now you are not required to do this. Lets say I want to sell a gun to my brother or my son, why should I have to have the additional cost and hassle? What about my next door neighbor? If I want to sell my car I do not need to hire an auto dealer. If I want to sell my house, I may use a realtor but should I be required by law to? If I want to sell a pile of pmags that I have been hording at gougers prices should I be required to use Ebay?

While we are at it, why the hell do I even have to use NICS? Get rid of it. Live free my friend.

[xd ED]

Flame suit on.

If I need a permit to purchase for these items from a store by state law, why should anyone else be exempt? Don't most of us require this already anyway?

I'm not for additional restrictions, but we're already restricted by this anyway to an extent, this (to my understanding) just ads the requirement to gun shows. If we can get some pro gun measures with it I'd be OK with this I guess. It's not a compromise when it's already something we are more or less required to do anyway.

The counter to your argument would be that a permit to purchase is already an unreasonable restriction.
With the current state government, we won't see any improvement in any liberties.

In an honest world of good faith measures and people, this would be no big deal.
The reality is, if passed- it will be at best selectively enforced, and it's impotence as a crime deterrent dragged out next session as to why we need common sense legislation.
A review of history will show that this is how every piece of gun control legislation- including permits to carry/ purchase have come to exist.

It's all politics; Make yourself look good, the opposition bad.