Minnesota’s Gun Control Bills Revealed

St. Paul pro gun rally courtesy facebook.com

Readers Moonshine and Paul M. have sent links to a raft of anti-gun rights legislation that have been introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives. Moonshine tells us the text of the proposed civilian disarmament bills was released yesterday and the legislative powers that be are planning to begin voting on them as early as Tuesday. We have a pretty good idea what North Star Stater Bruce Krafft’s attitude toward them will be . . . he’ll want to toss the lot into one of those famous 10,000 lakes (after cutting a hole in the ice first, natch). Paul’s list of the bills with his summaries after the jump . . .

H.F. 237: This primarily concerns mental health issues and transfer permits.  However, it removes court adjudication of mental health and replaces it with ANY hospitalization or commitment (even voluntary).  Grounds for disqualification. A determination by the chief of police or sheriff that the applicant is prohibited by section 624.713 any state or federal law from possessing a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon shall be the only basis for refusal to grant a transferee permit.

HF- 238: This updates the penalties for various infractions.   It makes CCW on school grounds a felony and allows weapon forfeiture (it was formerly a misdemeanor and forfeiture was specific exempted.

HF-239:  Refusal of a CCP permit holder to leave when requested is a gross misdemeanor (from petty misdemeanor) and the exemption of forfeiture is removed.  Second or subsequent refusal is a felony.

HF-240:  This relates to CCP permitting process. I read this as putting a roadblock in “shall issue” (is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the following sections: any state or federal law;) because other state laws could be used to justify not issuing.

HF-241: This is the list of banned weapons.   Specific weapons that were listed are removed.  The Feinstein criteria are inserted and some are expanded:

If not eligible to own, the weapons must be forfeited for destruction.

HF-242: High capacity (>10 rounds) magazine ban including sale and transfer.  120 days post enaction to disable or forfeit said magazines.

HF-243: Similar to HF-242 above, felony penalties for possession.

HF-244: relating to public safety; making it a crime to falsely report the loss or theft of a firearm; expanding the crime of transferring certain firearms to an ineligible person; making a person convicted of these crimes ineligible to possess a firearm;

45 Responses to Minnesota’s Gun Control Bills Revealed

  1. avatarNick says:

    “Refusal of a CCP permit holder to leave when requested is a gross misdemeanor (from petty misdemeanor) and the exemption of forfeiture is removed. Second or subsequent refusal is a felony.”

    Is this not a form of racism?

    • avatarmountocean says:

      Only if you’re carrying a racegun.
      Otherwise it’s just your run-of-the-mill civil rights violation.

    • avatarNelson says:

      “Racism”?

      Arguable.

      But, it clearly is a “Bill of Attainder,” thus clearly UnConstitutional. Then again, so are all “Gun Control” laws.

      All Bills of Attainder are UnConstitutional as per its explicit enumeration in the Constitution. Of course, we’re talking about the same group of a-holes that never read or comprehend the only document that they take an oath to uphold, to protect and defend. So frankly, all this is moot and academic, in reality.

      Apropos of 2A, a “bill of attainder” is any legislation (though some would more narrowly argue that it only applies to “punishments”) made to target a specific group, without any due-process based on common traits alone (which, in an ideal world, would also make all “mandatory sentences” null and void, but that’s for another thread).

      What qualifies a “group?” Well, any two or more persons who share a common trait (other than the fact that we’re all humans): genetic lineage, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disabilities, abilities, shared activities, shared traits, etc.

      And, it’s clear that these ‘laws’ only target gun owners. If ‘those who own guns’ don’t qualify as a “group,” and ‘laws’ made strictly targeting and limiting their rights don’t qualify as a “Bill of Attainder,” then nothing else does.

      Of course, morons commonly rebut, ‘then what about laws targeting criminals? Isn’t that a Bill of Attainder, too?’

      Well, all common laws, in principle, deal with levels of harm committed against an individual. The lack of awareness in understanding the importance of ‘harm quotient’ is why statist liberals/RINOs alike love bringing up how ‘no Constitutional rights are unlimited!’

      Um, no. ALL UnAlienable rights ARE unlimited, until you commit harm against another individual. The common misconception with “can’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is that, that really only applies WHEN someone or more are injured by you screaming “fire” when there is no fire, are you held liable.

      We don’t have prior restraints on freedoms. In fact, ‘not having prior restraints’ is the very definition of freedoms and hallmark of a free society built on those principles. Why the harm component, as it applies to common law, is so utterly misunderstood by supposedly ‘educated adults,’ is beyond me.

      But let’s face it, as those of us with an iota of functioning neurons already know, America has technically been a de facto policestate since 1933, when a state of emergency was declared by FDR

      On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

      “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”[1]

      “These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.”[2]

      “Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”[3]

      “With the melting of the cold war–the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.”

      However, technically, more pertinent is the fact that a version/continuation of FDR’s Emergency Act has NEVER been rescinded, since it’s been re-invoked by that ‘bleeding-heart liberal pinko commie peacenik’ Carter, and has been renewed every year since, by every proceeding POTUS, including GWB, and by one Barack Hussein oBUSHma:

      State of National Emergency in effect since November 1979

      The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously for over 30 years, since the Carter administration invoked it premised on the “situation in Iran”. In November 2012, President Barack Obama informed Congress that the State of National Emergency in effect since November 14, 1979 will be extended another year.[1] The National Emergencies Act grants various powers to the president during times of emergency,[2] and was intended to prevent a president from declaring a state of emergency of indefinite duration.[3]

      But, more apropos of our contemporary context, when a POTUS can sign NDAA of 2012 & 2013, as crafted, into ‘law’ we are a de facto/de jure (depending on whom you ask) police state. Habea Corpus has been a hallmark of Western freedoms since the 13th Century England. NO Western Gvt has officially ‘suspended’ it, until Lincoln (challenged, then SCOTUS overturned it), then Military Commissions Act under GWB, and now continued under Obama.

      No amount of BS verbal flourish is gonna change that.

      Laws for us ‘peons’: as Gerald Celente says, “there is no such thing as ‘Justice.’ In fact, it’s really spelled ‘just-us!’”

  2. avatarMoonshine says:

    I must correct my earlier statement regarding a vote being scheduled for Tuesday. After further research, I have found that the bills have been referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy, which will take up discussion of said bills on Tuesday. I regret the error.

    Further clarification of HF-241: Also prohibits the manufacture of banned weapons (there goes my job). Also requires registration, updated yearly, of grandfathered weapons. Also prohibits transfer of grandfathered weapons, even as inheritance.

    I would encourage any Minnesotan TTAGers to contact their state senators and reps and make clear their extreme displeasure with this attempt at legislative bullying.

    • avatarAlan says:

      Just wrote my Rep Pat Garafalo(R) and Senator Dave Thompson(R). Probably preaching to the choir, but at least Sen Dave Thompson is the Assistant Minority Leader. I am lucky that I live in a red suburb, but still wrote them with my opinion.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Untill this costs the anti’s lots & lots of money in jury damages etc nothing will drastically change, with the exception of us rioting. If we do riot though, will the cops go door to door & remove all guns from liberals so they don’t hurt us? I though so. One thing we do know, if you don’t get what you want its perfectly ok to loot & riot… & in truth I did have my eye on that nice flat screen by the mall, Randy

    • avatar9mm&4wd says:

      Already E-mailed and snail-mailed my reps, senators and governor googley-eyes.

      Moonshine, may I ask what company you are with? I feel the need to support the ever living f*** out of a good company with my tax returns.

  3. avatarEsoteric says:

    Im a Minnesota resident, and I just got nervous for the first time that my state govt is going to screw me.

  4. avatarRKBA says:

    All these morons are making the formerly grey line in the sand so much more…. clear, and expediting the eventuality of another Civil War.

    These states, and any others refusing to honor the Constitution should be forcibly removed from the union, immediately, before the cancer continues to spread.

    • avatarMoonshine says:

      We’re already fighting this, man. The email blitz and and letter-writing campaign are in full-force, and I know several individuals who have pledged to attend the committee hearings and offer testimony. Don’t write us off just yet.

      Jeez, now I know how Californians feel…;)

    • avatarLogan P says:

      Hey now, I love my country and I love Minnesota. I’d like to keep both, thank you.

  5. avatarTotenglocke says:

    I don’t get why people are so surprised by this – just looking at the existing Minnesota gun laws shows that the state (government anyways) isn’t a fan of guns…..so why are people so shocked that a state with not-so-good gun laws is promoting more anti-gun laws?

    • avatarBackyardsniper says:

      Our only current restrictions are no NFA weapons or devices.

      • avatarMoonshine says:

        Actually, machineguns and SBRs are legal. No silencers, though.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        And having a permit to buy a pistol or scary looking rifle. And a permit to carry in any form.

        • avatarLogan P says:

          Which is supposed to be approved or denied in less than 30 days… going on a month and a half for mine.

        • avatarMoonshine says:

          That’s bullsh!t, Logan. The text of the law currently states that if the permit is not issued or denied within 30 days, it is deemed issued. Call the sherriff’s office and let them know you are very happy to know that they have deemed your permit to be issued.

        • avatarLogan P says:

          I’m actually going to walk in, the St. Louis County office is literally across the street. I’ve been told what you just said multiple times Moonshine, but I haven’t been able to find the text.
          Thanks for the confidence boost. I want my friggin’ FAL.

  6. avatarBackyardsniper says:

    And we have a one party legislature and executive. This is gonna be a tough one.

  7. avatarLogan P says:

    Gawdammut. I’ve been waiting for my purchase permit so I can pick up my FAL… and now they wanna make it illegal.

    It does bug me, considering how many people I know that have MSRs. Hell, my LGS has fifteen various AKs, and SKSs are a pretty common hunting rifle… then again, Fudds are also very common and I’ve gotten the “nobody needs blah-blah-blah and I only use bolt actions and blackpowder so you should too” lecture more times than I care to count.

    More phone calls and emails I suppose.

  8. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    HF-241 link was dead for me, but if I read that right they are talking confiscation. I’m not from Mn, but I would regard that as intolerable (as in “Intolerable Acts”).

  9. avatarPatA says:

    I might be looking at job in MN, moving from WI. I hope to hell none of this goes through.

  10. avatarJack says:

    I believe this is the route that some states and municipalities will take to disarm people: creating a minefield of rules that are easily violated and that easily result in felony charges, with the understanding that felons can’t own guns. It’s frightening to think that the government would try to neuter the public in this way.

  11. avatarAnmut says:

    As a voter in WI I will be hoping that Scott Walker extends the invite to Magnum Research to jump the border to the Free State of Wisconsin (thus-far).

  12. avataruncommon_sense says:

    Who thought of HF238 “makes CCW on school grounds a felony”? Citizens with concealed carry licenses are NOT going into schools and shooting up the places. How is telling a good citizen with a concealed carry license that carrying into a school is a felony going to stop anything?

  13. avatarBT Whoopazz says:

    Next they will make it a crime to seek medical attention for depression.

  14. avatarLance says:

    No remember we won in Illinois.

  15. avatarpat says:

    Stupid,evil commie effing libtards.

  16. avatar9mm&4wd says:

    Already emailed and snail mailed my reps, senators, and governor googley-eyes.

    Moonshine, may I ask who you work for? I feel the need to support a good company with my tax returns.

  17. avatarRay Hendershot says:

    I think all these people making new laws for law abiding people,are totally out of touch with reality. They should start where the problem really is ,lets start by disarming the gangs ,drug dealers,thieves, and the rest of the scum. Maybe your commitee should take a trip down town after dark and see if you can get these folks to register there guns.GOOD LUCK

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.