Paymar wants to reintroduce ban on private sales

[connsolo]

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.

Hilstrom and Ortman had some great bills. If Paymar and friends were serious about keeping guns out of criminal hands, they would have supported those. They could even have added their little gunshow ptp, ptc requirement.

[tman]

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.

It's ALREADY UNLAWFUL for you to sell to a prohibited person; or to someone who uses a pistol or SAMSAW (semi-automatic military style assault weapon) within a year to further a felony crime of violence. That's why the smarter sellers ask to see permits / ID's of buyers.

[tman]

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.

Do you believe that this bill will remain in its current form?

[Thunder71]

It's ALREADY UNLAWFUL for you to sell to a prohibited person; or to someone who uses a pistol or SAMSAW (semi-automatic military style assault weapon) within a year to further a felony crime of violence. That's why the smarter sellers ask to see permits / ID's of buyers.

So requiring the dumb sellers to do so should be a good thing.

[tman]

So requiring the dumb sellers to do so at a gun show should be a good thing.

As "The Body" said when referring to snowmobilers who rode their machines into the water while "skipping,":

"You can't legislate stupidity," or was it, "Darwin at work..."


One of the two, any way!

[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.

Do you believe that this bill will remain in its current form?

If it doesn't, I pull my support.

[XDM45]

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/21 ... w-loophole

"ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) -
A last-minute meeting came together in a Minnesota House committee on Thursday to take-up a bill from Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St. Paul) to close the so-called gun show loophole.
The Public Safety Committee voted 10-8 Thursday on a compromise bill that removed a universal background check provision but kept an amendment to require background checks between private party sales at gun shows.

Read more: Minn. House committee votes 10-8 to close gun show loophole - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/21 ... z2OHI0acyV
Lesch's version of the bill is now headed to the floor of the House of Representatives, where Republican Rep. Tony Cornish -- a vocal NRA supporter and gun control opponent -- has promised vigorous debate."

So we MAY have a universal background check - at gun shows - if it passes the House too, but it's not a far leap to go from there to universal background check for private sales that aren't at gun shows. They are positioning, not compromising.

By the way, http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/H0285DE6.pdf (middle of page 6), that looks pretty toothless in Section 7.

[RobD]

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

Glass houses.....
It was heard last night at 5:30PM. It was drafted by Paymar/Schoen at 9:13 PM on 3/22, but was conveniently released only 45 mins before the start of the hearing.

This was all part of the compromise.

Paymar needed a bill out of committee so he could throw his universal background checks on as an amendment on the floor. He didn't have the votes to get his massive gun control bill HF237 out of committee.

Along comes HF285, a bill that has approval from just about anyone. They amended it with a watered down background check because they needed Hilstrom to switch her vote to get something out of committee for Paymar to attach to. He could have done the same thing to any gun bill. Hillstrom refused to accept any form of registration, and did us a big favor using that leverage to kill HF237 and all of the bad things, only to have Paymar's amendment go down in flames on the house floor.

Thanks to those that showed up, and take part in the GOCRA emails. Believe it or not, you really do make a difference.

[BigBlue]

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.

No, you're wrong. Rep. Hillstrom's HF.1325 had a lot of good stuff that would reduce gun violence. Many were supporting it, including NRA and GOCRA.

[XDM45]

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.

No, you're wrong. Rep. Hillstrom's HF.1325 had a lot of good stuff that would reduce gun violence. Many were supporting it, including NRA and GOCRA.

BigBlue, Exactly.

Heffay is confused.

Heffay,

Paymar didn't want HF1325 or any of the related bills that actually did something positive and were backed by the NRA and GOCRA. In fact, he kept it from getting voted on and refused to hear it. Now when HF237 failed, he's trying to get parts of it into other places. He's not concerned with crime, only his own agenda of personal and political interests.... and that's truly a crime.

[Heffay]

BigBlue, Exactly.

Heffay is confused.

Heffay,

Paymar didn't want HF1325 or any of the related bills that actually did something positive and were backed by the NRA and GOCRA. In fact, he kept it from getting voted on and refused to hear it. Now when HF237 failed, he's trying to get parts of it into other places. He's not concerned with crime, only his own agenda of personal and political interests.... and that's truly a crime.

Then you're ok with adding that provision to HF1325?

[XDM45]

BigBlue, Exactly.

Heffay is confused.

Heffay,

Paymar didn't want HF1325 or any of the related bills that actually did something positive and were backed by the NRA and GOCRA. In fact, he kept it from getting voted on and refused to hear it. Now when HF237 failed, he's trying to get parts of it into other places. He's not concerned with crime, only his own agenda of personal and political interests.... and that's truly a crime.

Then you're ok with adding that provision to HF1325?

Where did I say that? Don't assume such things which are completely incorrect.

[tman]

If it doesn't, I pull my support.

Are you ready to make a prediction if it'll be amended into something you can't accept?

[Heffay]

If it doesn't, I pull my support.

Are you ready to make a prediction if it'll be amended into something you can't accept?

I predict that won't happen. Amendments will be proposed and turned down. The desire to have a partial victory will mean they will setting for "closing the gun show loophole".

[infidel]

What is the governments concern; whether I met you at a gun show or my house to make a transaction? Why should it matter?

To compromise, is to erode your rights as a law abiding citizen.

No outlaw will care about any legislation.