Gun Show "loophole" in committee tonight

[princewally]

From the NRA liaison:

This evening, Rep. Paymar released his "gun show loop-hole" amendment to Rep Dill's Game and Fish Omnibus. The amendment is being offered in the House Finance Committee tomorrow evening.

The following language is included (if you would like to see an official version, feel free to email me: crager@nrahq.org):
_____________________________________________________________
(a) No person at a gun show shall transfer a firearm unless the transfer is to a federally licensed firearms dealer, or the transfer is conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer. A federally licensed firearms dealer may assist the transfer of a firearm between non-licensed persons, and shall cause a background check on the proposed transferee in the same manner, and in compliance with state and federal law, as if the federally licensed firearms dealer were transferring the firearms directly.

(b.) If any part of a firearm transfer agreement occurs at a gun show, and the transfer is completed, the transfer must be in compliance with clause (a)

(c) a “gun show” is defined as any venue, open to the public, in which twenty or more firearms are offered for transfer, and two or more persons are offering one or more firearms for transfer.

(d) this subdivision shall not apply to antique firearms as defined by subsection 624.712, subd 3.
_____________________________________________________________

Rep. Paymar is offering his amendment in this committee because he believes he has the necessary votes. Please contact members of the committee and urge them to vote NO on the Paymar Amendment. The following link is the House Finance Committee homepage:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/c ... comm=86106

More details to follow.

Prof. Joe Olson:

Rep. Paymar is at it again. He's going to attach his "gun show" amendment onto Rep. Dill's hunting bill in the Finance Committee. That is a committee with an anti-gun majority.

Per NRA's Chris Rager, the Finance Committee will meet Tuesday evening (not 8 am as scheduled ). Check electronic schedule after 9 am for update. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/ ... =4/28/2009

Lets pack the room with opposition.

Unfortunately, I have to give a long-scheduled, public dinner speech at the same moment.

P. S. I wouldn't put it past the metro DFL Leadership to have deliberately arranged this (Paymar's poorly thought out amendment, the evening hearing, etc.) just to get out a lot of gun owners to SUPPORT Rep. Dill's bill WITH the "metro area carveout" in order to DEFEAT the shill amendment proposed by Paymar. The "metro area is unsafer" policy is a gift that will keep on giving. Without Rep. Dill's "hunter's convenience" language in the bill, Paymar's amendment will NOT be germane and out of order. Think about that. Is the DFL that cagy???

-----Forwarded Message-----
Subject: NRA Strongly Opposes Paymar's Amendment

Please find attached an amendment that Rep. Paymar intends to add to Rep Dill's omnibus Game and Fish bill tomorrow evening in the House Finance Committee. NRA is STRONGLY opposed to the amendment. Rep Paymar's amendment is what anti-gunners refer to as the "gun show loop hole." Please note the amendment's negative implications for gun ranges (the below comments are from our attorneys).

"Although the scope would ostensibly be limited to “gun shows,” that term is defined quite broadly and seemingly would encompass, for example, the rental of firearms at a range that has two or more employees and 20 or more firearms available for rental (note that the amendment does not say the transfer need be permanent). If so, every person offering to rent firearms at such a range would have to be an FFL, unless a NICS check and any required state background check were conducted on each renter (who was not an FFL) via an FFL."

* First and foremost, gun shows are not a primary source of guns for criminals. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source.

* The bill will cause FFL's to violate federal law. The 1994 NICS statute only allows dealers to access the NICS system regarding actual proposed sales from their business inventory not as a "favor" to a private seller.

* Regulating the private sale of firearms will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.

* Rep. Paymar's Amendment will only affect law-abiding gun owners -- that's his intention. Criminals will not subject themselves to this requirement. Increasing costs and creating further obstacles for law-abiding gun buyers will not slow the illicit trade in firearms.

* There are no lawful “unlicensed dealers.” Any person who engages in the business of buying and selling firearms as a course of business is required by federal law to obtain a federal firearms license. People who “engage in the business” without a license can be arrested and convicted of a federal felony—whether they “engage in business” at a gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.

Easy email list:
rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn, rep.john.benson@house.mn, rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn, rep.laura.brod@house.mn, rep.bobby.champion@house.mn, rep.karen.clark@house.mn, rep.tom.emmer@house.mn, rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn, rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn, rep.alice.hausman@house.mn, rep.bill.hilty@house.mn, rep.larry.howes@house.mn, rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn, rep.al.juhnke@house.mn, rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn, rep.mary.kiffmeyer@house.mn, rep.kate.knuth@house.mn, rep.paul.kohls@house.mn, rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn, rep.mary.murphy@house.mn, rep.michael.paymar@house.mn, rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn, rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn, rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn, rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn, rep.steve.simon@house.mn, rep.nora.slawik@house.mn, rep.steve.smith@house.mn, rep.loren.solberg@house.mn, rep.paul.thissen@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn, rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn, rep.marty.seifert@house.mn

[princewally]

The hearing will take place at the conclusion of the floor session today--approximately 3pm, maybe later.

Note: Paymar's amendment may violate federal law:

According to the regulations: ”FFLs may initiate a NICS background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly prohibited from initiating a NICS background check for any other purpose.” 28 CFR 25.6(a) (emphasis supplied). The Brady Act only “requires” an FFL to perform a NICS check, moreover, when the FFL transfers a firearm to a non-licensee. See 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1) (“a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless … before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of that Act”).

The bill, however, contemplates that an FFL will perform a NICS check on behalf of a non-licensee who is transferring a firearm to another non-licensee. The Brady Act contains no requirement or authorization for this.

And a little more:

“(j) Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks required by the Brady Act. Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) shall be limited to uses for the purpose of:

(1) Providing information to Federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related or explosives-related permit or license, including permits or licenses to possess, acquire, or transfer a firearm, or to carry a concealed firearm, or to import, manufacture, deal in, or purchase explosives; or

(2) Responding to an inquiry from the ATF in connection with a civil or criminal law enforcement activity relating to the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53).”

28 CFR 25.6(j).

I think all this pretty clearly prohibits the portion of the amendment that states: “A federally licensed firearms dealer may assist the transfer of a firearm between non-licensed persons, and shall cause a background check on the proposed transferee in the same manner, and in compliance with state and federal law, as if the federally licensed firearms dealer were transferring the firearm directly.”

[plblark]

60 people clearly together is better than 5 people with great signs and well organized. I think it's time to take a trip to the capitol.

[Widge]

E mailed my Rep. (Andrew Falk - a DFLer, but a supporter of gun rights) and sent this:

Dear Representative (I say 'Representative' advisedly, since that it was you are elected to do, represent the people who voted for you, not those who you work with)

I write to bring to your attention this attempt by Rep. Paymar to once again circumvent debate by attaching his bill (H.F. 953) to an Omnibus hearing for Rep. Dill.s Game and Fish proposals.

This bill is nothing more than an attack on law - abiding citizens rights. In particular I draw your attention to the following points:


"Although the scope would ostensibly be limited to ?gun shows,? that term is defined quite broadly and seemingly would encompass, for example, the rental of firearms at a range that has two or more employees and 20 or more firearms available for rental (note that the amendment does not say the transfer need be permanent). If so, every person offering to rent firearms at such a range would have to be an FFL, unless a NICS check and any required state background check were conducted on each renter (who was not an FFL) via an FFL."

* First and foremost, gun shows are not a primary source of guns for criminals. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on ?Firearms Use by Offenders? found that fewer than 1% of U.S. ?crime guns? came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source.

* The bill will cause FFL's to violate federal law. The 1994 NICS statute only allows dealers to access the NICS system regarding actual proposed sales from their business inventory not as a "favor" to a private seller.

* Regulating the private sale of firearms will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.

* Rep. Paymar's Amendment will only affect law-abiding gun owners -- that's his intention. Criminals will not subject themselves to this requirement. Increasing costs and creating further obstacles for law-abiding gun buyers will not slow the illicit trade in firearms.

* There are no lawful ?unlicensed dealers.? Any person who engages in the business of buying and selling firearms as a course of business is required by federal law to obtain a federal firearms license. People who ?engage in the business? without a license can be arrested and convicted of a federal felony?whether they ?engage in business? at a gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.

I urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to defeat this odious piece of trumped up legislation.

Thank you.

To the rest of the sheep, not that it's likely to do any good.

[Widge]

I got a definite 'NO' to this amendment from Rep. Steve Smith, and Falk states he will vote against it should it ever reach the floor.

[Stradawhovious]

I will be voting against the Paymar amendment and supporting 2nd
amendment rights!

Rep. Marty Seifert

Representative Marty Seifert
Minority Leader
267 State Office Building
100 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

The only response I have received so far.

[DeanC]

Please contact members of the committee and urge them to vote NO on the Paymar Amendment.

I'm actually encouraging people to trash the whole HF1238 Omnibus game and fish bill. There is nothing good that can come of any of it.

[Widge]

Another 'No' from Rep. Kiffmier.

[JoeH]

Peppin replied to my email with an "I agree." and a resounding NO vote.

[nyffman]

Here's the latest from Paul Kohls:

Friends,

As I mentioned in my last email, we had a temporary success when Rep. Paymar could not muster the votes needed to put his anti-Second amendment provisions on to another bill in committee several weeks ago. Unfortunately, Rep. Paymar has not given up in his effort to erode our Second Amendment rights.

Last night in the House Finance Committee, Rep. Paymar offered an amendment to the Omnibus Game and Fish Bill that would severely limit private citizens' ability to sell or transfer firearms at gun shows. Unfortunately, the amendment went on to the bill. I spoke against and voted against the amendment, but we were out numbered. Thankfully, Rep. David Dill, the author of the bill and a pro-Second Amendment legislator, decided to "table" the bill after the amendment went on so the bill did not get voted out of committee.

We need to remain ever vigilant on this critical issue. I can assure you that I'll continue to work on your behalf here in St. Paul.

[plblark]

You can listen to the Audio of the committee here:

Here's the direct link for listening or download:

It's from 04/28/2009 The Amendment gets discussed at 02:47:58 and onward.

The vote is ~03:22:40 or so
Benson: Aye
Brod: No
Buesgens: No
Champion: Aye
Clark: Yes
Garofalo: No
Greiling: Yes
Hackbarth: No
Hausman: Yes
Hilty: No
Juhnke: No
Kahn: Yes
Kiffmeyer: Left just before the vote.
Knuth: Yes
Kohls: No
Lenczewski: Yes
Payamar: Yes
Rukavina: No
Shimanski: No
Simon: Pass
Slawik: Yes
Smith: No (Smith passed the talking points information to the committee on our behalf)
Solberg: No
Carlson: Yes
Thissen: Yes

Seifert : Ex-Officio member so he could discuss ( I don't remember him doing so) but does not vote.

Amendment Passes 12:11 with one Pass and a Walk
03:24:27 Dill Tables the Bill