yukonjasper wrote:Here is the exchange with one of my Representatives. I give her credit, she actually responded. Jason Lewis did also, but it was a canned answer that really didn't address my email.
To the extent this gives you a feel for where their heads are at, I share it below.
From: "Laurie Halverson" <Rep.Laurie.Halverson@house.mn>
Date: Mar 1, 2018 16:09
Subject: Re: 55123 Gun control legislation.
To: "yukonjasper@xxxxxxxx" <yukonjasper@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Dear Steven,
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to efforts to reform Minnesota’s gun laws. I appreciate your sharing your perspective.
First, I want to thank you for the respectful tone of your email and I appreciated your thoughtful, respectful approach to discussing your concern. I agree with you that quick reactions do not always lead to good public policy.
That said, I want to be candid with you and let you know that I do support reforming Minnesota’s firearms laws provided it is done in a reasonable way. Most Minnesotans, including gun owners, are in agreement that there are a limited number of people who should not have access to firearms.
I support enacting a comprehensive firearms criminal background check system. As you may know, under current law federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are required to conduct background checks on potential purchasers regardless of where that sale is conducted. It could be a sale that occurs at a store, a gun show, or anywhere else. However, no such requirement exists for private sellers of firearms, including private sellers who attend gun shows. Since gun shows often attract numerous private sellers (in addition to FFLs), there is a concern that private sales conducted at those events result in firearms being purchased by people who are currently prohibited from owning a firearm. Therefore, it is argued that private sellers at gun shows should be required to abide by the same requirements that federally licensed firearm dealers must comply with, such as conducting background checks on potential buyers. This certainly sounds like a reasonable modification to make to existing law.
I can see no rational basis for drawing a distinction between gun show sales conducted by FFLs versus those conducted by private sellers. In fact, at a gun show you can have private sellers and FFLs selling their wares within feet of each other. If I buy a firearm from an FFL I have to undergo a background check, but if I step over 10 feet to buy an identical weapon from a private seller, no background check is required.
Addressing this problem is just one step I believe Minnesota could take that would make our communities safer without impeding on the 2nd Amendment.
How best to enhance public safety can often be a controversial issue, especially when it entails regulating the ownership of firearms. That is why I want to assure you that as this gun violence debate moves forward, I will be listening to the input of my constituents carefully. That is why I am glad you wrote. To effectively represent our district, it is important that I hear from constituents who hold a wide variety of perspectives. I am taking a deliberative and contemplative approach to what is clearly a vital issue to so many Minnesotans. I think it is important that I carefully review the specifics of each proposal, gather input from my constituents on their merits/demerits, and consider the long-range implications of their enactment.
I rely heavily upon the calls, letters, and emails I receive to help me understand the views of our community, which is why I value your comments and I hope you will continue to stay in touch. ¬I would welcome hearing from you anytime.
Finally, in your note, you stressed the need for public input into any measure that is considered. I agree with you. The public should have the opportunity to provide feedback on any and all bills proposed. I believe there should be a fair and open debate about how best to protect Minnesotans from gun violence and support the 2nd amendment. All ideas should be on the table for discussion with both proponents and opponents given adequate time to share their points-of-view.
I always learn a great deal by listening to my constituents. As the Greek philosopher Epictetus said, “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” I hope this assures you that I will be advocating for a deliberative process that respects all interested parties.
Again, thank you for your email.
Sincerely,
Laurie Halverson
State Representative
Representative Laurie Halverson
District 51B, Eagan
233 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-4128
>>> On 2/20/2018 at 2:37 PM, <yukonjasper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rep. Halverson,
I do not support efforts to introduce legislation that would further curtail the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms. Understanding the emotion around current events and the overwhelming urge to "DO SOMETHING", I do not support knee jerk legislation that does not take into account all avenues of the situation. To that end, a measured, non-emotional analysis which includes public input should be employed. Reasonable people can disagree on an issue but there needs to be the means and the time to have that discussion.
From: Steven J. XXXXXXXXXX
Email: yukonjasper@XXXXXXXXXX
Eagan
55123
Are you going to ask her how you eliminate the "gun show loophole" without registration? Nearly all the mass shooters legally purchased and passed background checks, so what problem does she think she's fixing? Tell her if she wants to reform something then if you have a valid ID matching your carry permit you shouldn't have to fill out anything to buy any gun, that's reform I could get behind.
For some reason this reminds me of what one of my liberal friends told me in a heated debate on voter ID, "you shouldn't have to show ID to exercise a constitutional right"
