I found this gem in my inbox from Rep. Paymar regarding HF953.

Dear Marc:

Thank you for contacting me regarding House File 953.  As the author of this legislation, I want to clearly dispel the misinformation that surrounds this proposal.

This bill is good policy. Since this legislation was first introduced last year, I have worked with opponents and proponents to resolve any outstanding issues and allay any concerns that law abiding gun owners and sellers have about the intent of the bill. I also worked with law enforcement officials who are concerned about this loophole in our background check law.  HF 953 addresses many concerns brought forth by sportsmen, gun dealers, and privacy rights advocates.  Let me tell you how this bill does NOT infringe upon your second amendment rights and let me tell you what it does do.

Sure, let’s let the author who wants to take away our guns explain how this doesn’t affect our 2A rights.

Most importantly, every individual who can legally purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon in Minnesota will still be able to DO so if this bill passes.

Yes, will be able to do so at a greater expense placed on only those who follow the law.

This bill simply closes an unintended loophole in our background check provisions.  Under current federal and state laws, persons convicted of a felony, those convicted of a domestic
assault, and people with SERIOUS mental health problems are not allowed to purchase or possess pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. Under current law, anyone purchasing a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons must have a background check to ensure they aren’t disqualified from possessing this kind of firearm. The loophole is, that people can purchase pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons from unlicensed sellers without obtaining a background check.

House File 953 DOES the following:

HF 953 DOES keep the current law in place.  The same requirements that buyers now follow when they buy a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon from a licensed dealer, like Gander Mountain, would be applied when they buy a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon from an unlicensed seller, at a gun show, or on the internet.

Requiring a $25-$50 fee be paid to the Federal Firearms Dealer for completing the transfer. Doubling the cost of purchasing a used $50 rifle.

HF 953 DOES help enforce the legislative intent of current law. Individuals who have lost their eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons still have avenues in the current system allowing them access to guns.  HF 953 simply requires a background check.  This is already standard for most gun sales in Minnesota, when a sale is conducted by a licensed dealer and includes pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons.

HF 953 DOES help law enforcement.  The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association supports this bill as do individual law enforcement agencies. Police officers recognize the danger of allowing people who are ineligible to possess a pistol or a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon to purchase these weapons without a background check. Additionally, law enforcement agencies currently charge a fee for conducting background checks when an application is submitted to carry a pistol.  However, law enforcement is not allowed by statute to charge a fee for conducting “permit to purchase” background checks.  This is an important task for law enforcement agencies and they are asked to conduct thousands of checks per year.  HF 953 sets a maximum fee at cost, plus $5.00.

House File 953 DOES NOT do the following:

HF 953 DOES NOT establish gun registration.  The background check, set forth in this bill, only determines if a buyer is legally allowed to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon.  It does not require buyers to register individual purchases with law enforcement. It uses the existing FBI instant background check system, which does not connect a purchase of a weapon to a purchaser.  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. Existing law allows people to voluntarily leave a record of a gun sale with local police–this bill does not change that. The second paragraph in the bill (which in legislative language is called a repealer) also does nothing to change existing law - it is only the removal of a duplication of sec. 11 subd. 8.

Text from the proposed legislation:
6.1 Subd. 10a. Record keeping. All reports of transfer shall be maintained in a manner,
6.2 as determined by the Department of Public Safety, that facilitates efficient crime gun
6.3 tracing and ensures that the records are available for all lawful purposes, including being
6.4 available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for purposes of civil or
6.5 criminal law enforcement investigations.

This registration system does not exist now. I wonder how he defines establishing a registration system?

HF 953 DOES NOT affect hunters.  Private sales of rifles, like kitchen table trades, are not affected by this legislation.  Sales at gun shows would be treated the same way as sales of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons from licensed dealers at sporting goods stores.

Only until the superintendent of the BCA adds more firearms to the Semi-automatic-military-style-assault weapon list.

Quote:
624.712 DEFINITIONS
…
Subd. 8.Included weapons.
By August 1, 1993, and annually thereafter, the superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall publish a current authoritative list of the firearms included within the definition of “semiautomatic military-style assault weapon” under this section. Dealers, purchasers, and other persons may rely on the list in complying with this chapter.

HF 953 DOES NOT affect transfers among family members.

Let me reiterate, HF 953 does not affect law abiding Minnesotans from purchasing these weapons.  Only people who are already disqualified from buying pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons would be prevented from making a purchase if a background check determined they were ineligible. Most people who sell pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons at gun shows are licensed dealers-this bill does not affect them.

It is unfortunate that misinformation about HF 953 continues to be sent out to law-abiding Minnesotans.  I have worked with law enforcement on behalf of crime victims for over twenty-five years and my only intent with this bill is to make our communities safer.  I urge you to read the bill and draw your own conclusions.  Reasonable people can disagree, but I think that you will find that this bill in no way infringes upon your second amendment rights. I have no illusions that criminals will continue to get their hands on pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. It is my hope, that this bill (even in a small way) will plug a loophole in our current law, so we can keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Sincerely,

Michael Paymar
State Representative

Michael Paymar
Chair, Public Safety Finance Committee

Minnesota House of Representatives
543 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, MN 55155
office:  651-296-4199
rep.michael.paymar@house.mn

I’m tired of picking apart his lies. The burden is on Paymar to show what result we can expect from these new fees, administrative costs, and legislation. This is what history tells us and what every legislator should be made aware of.

Registration Doesn’t Reduce Crime
Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime. Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.
Prof. John Lott, “Gun Licensing Leads to Increased Crime, Lost Lives”, L.A. Times, Aug 23, 2000

Most police do not see the benefit. “It is my belief that [licensing and registration] significantly misses the mark because it diverts our attention from what should be our common goal: holding the true criminals accountable for the crimes they commit and getting them off the street.”
Bob Brooks, Ventura County Sheriff, “When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives”, Firing Line, September 2001

Criminals don’t buy at gun shows
Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, February 2002

Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”
James D. Wright, U.S. Dept of Justice, The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons 2 (1986)

The only thing this bill will accomplish is to further tax law abiding firearms owners. If Rep. Paymar truly wanted to reduce gun violence, he would introduce a bill to stiffen penalties for violent offenders and keep them locked up so they don’t become repeat offenders.