HF161

[cobb]

I assume I will be seeing Tony and possibly sitting with him this Saturday night. He sat at our table last year at a local sportsman banquet and e-mailed me that he plans to attend again this weekend. Tony makes it to a lot of these local events like parades, banquets, etc., to make himself available to his constituents. So I assume he will be open to talking shop this Saturday night, but I want to question him as a friend and not a foe.

So any thoughts as to what kind of topics I should bring up?
Not that it will happen, but you never know.

[Steelheart]

there's also an author's amendment to DELETE the PTP entirely which I think is the way togo and which I was calling all the members of the committee and saying since early this morning.

It's redundant.

The only nice thing about ptp... is it give the average joe blow a way to say... "hey I've had a background check" when you are buying or selling privately, buy I agree... it's a waste of money.

That was my thought too.

Steelheart

[lenny7]

New article by the Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/114693259.html

[DeanC]

Fox 9 this morning said the reason the Fed databases are incomplete is Minnesota doesn't share data with the Feds in a timely manner. Go figure.

[chunkstyle]

New article by the Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/114693259.html

Front page, above the fold, in today's edition.

[gyrfalcon]

Fox 9 this morning said the reason the Fed databases are incomplete is Minnesota doesn't share data with the Feds in a timely manner. Go figure.

Maybe they should start? Fricken incompetent @#$@#@#s....


"Rick Thompson of Blaine, a customer at Capra's, said that existing state and federal gun laws are adequate. I wouldn't want them any more restrictive or any less," Thompson said. On state and federal background checks, he said, "I don't know why you'd need both.""

Someone backhand his guy if you know him...He has an opinion but doesn't know why.

[jdege]

How would this affect this?

Minn. Stat. 609.66 DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
Subd. 1f.Gross misdemeanor; transferring firearm without background check.

A person, other than a federally licensed firearms dealer, who transfers a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon to another without complying with the transfer requirements of section 624.7132, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, and if:

(1) the transferee was prohibited from possessing the weapon under section 624.713 at the time of the transfer; or

(2) it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the transfer that the transferee was likely to use or possess the weapon in furtherance of a felony crime of violence.

Currently, checking the buyer's permit-to-carry or permit-to-purchase satisfies this requirement, and protects you from any liability.

If we no longer have a purchase permit, would we have to transfer through an FFL, or restrict our sales to carry permit holders?

[DeanC]

Currently, checking the buyer's permit-to-carry or permit-to-purchase satisfies this requirement

The permit to purchase only guarantees that the person satisfied that requirement at the time the permit was issued. If they subsequently became ineligible, how would you know?

and protects you from any liability.

I do not believe there is any established case law on that. It looks more like an assumption

If we no longer have a purchase permit, would we have to transfer through an FFL, or restrict our sales to carry permit holders?

You could do either. I don't mind restricting my sales to carry permit holders.

[mnglocker]

Who said that a permit would not be available? This as I understand it removes the requirement to obtain one.

[hammAR]

If we no longer have a purchase permit, would we have to transfer through an FFL, or restrict our sales to carry permit holders?

You could do either. I don't mind restricting my sales to carry permit holders.

Agreed, limiting personal sales to P2C individuals would be far more advantageous that restricting sales - except through an FFL.............

[DeanC]

Who said that a permit would not be available? This as I understand it removes the requirement to obtain one.

Yes. You can also still get a fish license.

[jdege]

Currently, checking the buyer's permit-to-carry or permit-to-purchase satisfies this requirement

The permit to purchase only guarantees that the person satisfied that requirement at the time the permit was issued. If they subsequently became ineligible, how would you know?

You wouldn't. But you'd still have checked the permit, which is what the statute requires.

[WWJD]

Deaner, you are so bad
Eric the half a Bee

[DeanC]

La dee da
La dee dee

[jdege]

Je suis l'Eggman.
Vous etes les eggmen.
Je suis le walrus.
Goo goo ga joob.
~