Dear Lenny7

I know of three Minnesotans killed with AK-47s, just in the last year or so. One was the mother of a toddler, killed by a man just out of prison.

Though the source of that assault weapon in unknown, under current law, gun shows and internet sites allow disqualified people to buy pistols and assault weapons with no background check from any unlicensed seller.

It is time to close that loophole.

ACT NOW - Click below to urge your legislator to support HF 953!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/22 ... _KEY=26738

This year there is a real chance for change, with your help. Rep. Michael Paymar, with support from House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, has introduced a bill requiring a background check before the purchase of a pistol or assault weapon anywhere in the state, and any gun at a gun show.

ACT NOW - Click below to urge your legislator to support HF 953!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/22 ... _KEY=26738

Thank you for all you do,

Heather Martens

Executive Director

Citizens for a Safer Minnesota/Protect Minnesota

More about the bill:

What does HF 953 do?


1) Keeps current law in place. The same requirements that buyers follow now when they buy a firearm at a dealer, like Gander Mountain, would be applied when they buy a pistol or assault weapon from an unlicensed seller, or any gun at a gun show.

2) Closes off a legal avenue for criminals to get firearms. The ATF reported in 2000 that gun shows are a major trafficking channel, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone. (U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Gun Traffickers, June 2000, p. 13.) If HF 953 were adopted, web sites that facilitate in-state gun trafficking, under the guise of legal private sales, could be stopped from doing so.

3) Improves the chances that a crime gun trace will lead law enforcement to the offender. By requiring the same Federal background check on used pistols or assault weapons that are required mainly for new firearms, it would now be more possible to trace a crime gun -- usually a pistol -- to its most recent owner. In the United States, nearly 40 percent of murders are unsolved, and one obstacle for investigators is that secondary gun sales are completely undocumented.

4) Establishes a middle ground on the treatment of guns. The bill takes neither a gun-rights nor a non-gun-rights position. The middle ground is rights with responsibilities. Minnesotans, including gun owners, overwhelmingly support background checks before the purchase of any firearm -- a 2006 University of Minnesota survey found that 82 percent of Minnesotans support having the same background check requirements for private sales that are currently required only for Federally licensed dealers.

5) Brings in revenue for law enforcement. Law enforcement currently charges for the background checks they conduct as part of the permit to carry a pistol application. But they are not allowed to charge for the same type of service when they process ordinary permit-to-purchase background checks -- something they do thousands of times per year. The bill would make the background check charge uniform.

Here is what the bill does NOT do:

1) It does not establish gun registration. After conducting an instant background check on a gun buyer, the FBI is required by law to destroy its record within 24 hours. Only the licensed dealer maintains the record of the sale.

2) It does not affect hunters. Genuinely private sales of long guns, like kitchen-table trades, would not be affected. Sales at gun shows would be treated the same way as sales by gun dealers like Gander Mountain, as they should be.

3) It does not affect transfers among family members.

4) It does not change eligibility to buy firearms. Only people who are already disqualified from buying firearms would be prevented from making a purchase.

Protect Minnesota has worked hard to find the common ground on the treatment of guns, and rights-with-responsibilities is that common ground. The PROTECT Minnesota campaign is a collaboration of hunters and non-gun owners, and is endorsed by the American Hunters and Shooters Association. For more information, visit www.endgunviolence.com.

There are a few who oppose background checks before the purchase of pistols and assault weapons, but they are not the majority, even among gun owners.

Further information:

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reported that it is possible to close down certain gun trafficking channels through regulation. In 2008, a Mayors Against Illegal Guns study of 2007 crime gun trace data found a strong correlation between loose gun regulation and number of crime guns exported to other states.

"Weak gun laws also put a state's own citizens at risk. There were nearly 60 percent more gun murders in the 10 states where exports were highest than in the states with low export rates -- and nearly three times as many fatal shootings of law enforcement officers." (New York Times, Dec. 23, 2008)

National Public Radio reports (Feb. 19, 2009) that Mexican gangs are arming themselves with firearms they buy on the loosely regulated U.S. gun market. Increasingly in Mexican cities, police are under seige by well-armed gangs who have assassinated police officials.

Minnesota also has gangs that can easily get guns and are threatening communities. If the illegal flow of guns to dangerous people is to be stopped, we must stop the legal flow.

* * *

Canada, with strong gun laws, is a hunting country that experiences little gun death. In 2004, the U.S. had 11,344 gun homicides. Canada had 184.

Canada, with strong gun laws, is a hunting country that experiences little gun death. In 2004, the U.S. had 11,344 gun homicides. Canada had 184.

Though the source of that assault weapon in unknown, under current law, gun shows and internet sites allow disqualified people to buy pistols and assault weapons with no background check from any unlicensed seller.

624.7141 TRANSFER TO INELIGIBLE PERSON.
Subdivision 1.Transfer prohibited.

A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally transfers a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon to another if the person knows that the transferee:

(1) has been denied a permit to carry under section 624.714 because the transferee is not eligible under section 624.713 to possess a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon;

(2) has been found ineligible to possess a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon by a chief of police or sheriff as a result of an application for a transferee permit or a transfer report; or

(3) is disqualified under section 624.713 from possessing a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon.
Subd. 2.Felony.

A violation of this section is a felony if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence.
Subd. 3.Subsequent eligibility.

This section is not applicable to a transfer to a person who became eligible to possess a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon under section 624.713 after the transfer occurred but before the transferee used or possessed the weapon in furtherance of any crime.
History:

1994 c 636 art 3 s 41

Though the source of the assault weapon is unknown, we want to punish law abiding gun owners anyhow since we don't like them

I wish she would go back to stirring her cauldron.

Stop by her house, at [deleted. JR] and ask her.

What made her so anti gun?? Family or friend get killed?

Fair enough, I meant nothing unfriendly. After all, she's my neighbor.

In a 25 Feb 2009 e-mailing, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota said:

"Though the source of that assault weapon in unknown,
under current law, gun shows and internet sites allow
disqualified people to buy pistols and assault weapons with
no background check from any unlicensed seller."
(emphasis added)

Everything after the bolded statement is PURE SPECULATION. Wishing it so, doesn't make it so!

Earlier this week, I called the Minneapolis PD's Weapons Task Force, the ATF's Minneapolis tracing project, and the ATF's public information specialist and all confirmed that there is NO EVIDENCE that the weapons being used by criminal gang members to shoot up the 55411 and 55404 neighborhoods in Minneapolis are coming from private sales at either gun shows or the seller's home in the suburbs. It's "not happening" one knowledgeable officer said (but not for attribution).

The best CSM can come up with in their recent e-mail is an outdated ATF Survey that reports that less than 0.085% of guns sold in a year (17,000 out of 20 million) were "involved" in ATF investigations of gun shows during 1996-98 period. Since the average number of guns "per investigation" is reported as 130, the reported data CANNOT be for "private sales" by non-dealers because anyone selling that many guns is a "dealer" (see 18 USC §922) and is committing a federal felony with every firearm transfer made to anyone. Conflating these criminal acts with lawful sales results in invalid statistics and erroneous policy conclusions that you are asked to accept as truth. It ain't so!

The 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment developed by the FBI, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies notes, correctly, that "Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities (guess where in Minneapolis)" and "Typical gang-related crimes include ... weapons trafficking." Gang members and other criminals don't buy their guns at private sales, they get them much cheaper and conveniently from their local criminal drug seller.

There is a violence problem in certain Minneapolis neighborhoods. But it isn't caused by private sales of firearms by Minnesota's two million gun owners and NO RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THEM WILL HAVE ANY EFFECT in reducing the carnage in north Minneapolis. This 2008 study by University of Maryland criminologists establishes that California's private sale restrictions (which HF953 adopts) have no effect. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1278446

So, ...
it is clear that what CSM must actually mean by its statement is this: "Though the source of that assault weapon is unknown, we want to punish law-abiding gun owners because we hate guns."

Actions DO speak louder than words!

Professor Joseph Olson
President, GOCRA

VERY well written. Thank you.

...
So, ...
it is clear that what CSM must actually mean by its statement is this: "Though the source of that assault weapon is unknown, we want to punish law-abiding gun owners because we hate guns."