Gun bill in the house.

  • TazTyke
    Central Minnesota
    Posts: 473
    April 30, 2014 at 5:13 am #1357856

    You decide if you should contact your legislator. I will be contacting a few and doing some more research. I personally am not in favor if more gun restrictions.

    ST. PAUL, Minn.- The Minnesota House is primed to vote on a bill that would ban people convicted of certain abuse crimes or subject to restraining orders from possessing guns.

    The bipartisan bill awaiting action Wednesday marks a rare instance where lawmakers are prepared to tighten gun possession restrictions.

    Democratic Rep. Dan Schoen says he hopes his proposal will help save lives.

    If it becomes law, people convicted of child or domestic abuse would have to give their firearms to a person or an entity legally allowed to receive them within three days.

    The bill is backed by prominent gun-rights defender Tony Cornish, a Republican legislator. He says it protects gun owners’ rights and those in worrisome domestic environments.

    The state Senate version of the bill awaits action on that chamber’s floor

    TheFamousGrouse
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 11588
    April 30, 2014 at 7:42 am #1407232

    Quote:

    ST. PAUL, Minn.- The Minnesota House is primed to vote on a bill that would ban people convicted of certain abuse crimes or subject to restraining orders from possessing guns.

    I’m not in favor of more gun restrictions, but I am in favor of tougher punishment of CRIMINALS.

    I’ve bolded what I see as the key word in the article: convicted.

    If a person is a convicted abuser or stalker, that’s not by accident and it doesn’t just happen to someone who makes one bad decision. Someone who beats a wife, girlfriend, or child is a freaking dirtbag perp and deserves to lose their guns, IMO.

    The fact that the law allows the transfer of this private property to another individual who IS allowed to own them, makes it seem to me like this is crime and criminal control, not gun control.

    Grouse

    suzuki
    Woodbury, Mn
    Posts: 18605
    April 30, 2014 at 7:46 am #1407236

    I think the law makes sense but I hate giving these people and inch because they will abuse that win.

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    April 30, 2014 at 7:53 am #1407244

    I’d be careful with the bar for domestic abuse. There is a wide range domestic abuse categories, for lack of a better word.

    farmboy1
    Mantorville, MN
    Posts: 3668
    April 30, 2014 at 8:21 am #1407258

    Felons are already not allowed to have guns. How many stalkers are there that are not convicted felons? I don’t think this will have an effect on many people. I think this is some more feel good legislation to get a senators name in the newspaper.

    And for the record, I am against it

    vikefanmn77
    Northfield,MN
    Posts: 1493
    April 30, 2014 at 10:23 am #1407297

    That’s the reality there. Felons are not allowed to have firearms as it sits now. If said domestic abuse was severe enough, then it would already be a felony. What they’re doing now is allowing a he said/she said case to prevent someone (possibly completely innocent) from owning a firearm.

    Did you know that I could claim assault due to offensive catfish bait odors and receive a restraining order against BK?!?! Is that fair???

    suzuki
    Woodbury, Mn
    Posts: 18605
    April 30, 2014 at 10:28 am #1407302

    I know this is a slippery slope. I know a guy that lost his guns and hunting privileges for protecting his child from his drunk wife. After reading this I agree. Make those crimes felonys and the gun thing would take care of itself.

    TheFamousGrouse
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 11588
    April 30, 2014 at 10:43 am #1407315

    Good points brought up here, so I looked up the text of the bill.

    Currently, anyone convicted of domestic violence against a spouse, partner, or child (and “domestic violence” is already defined by MN law, so it’s not a vague term open to interpretation) already is banned from owning or possessing a handgun.

    The new bill (HF 3238 would):

    – Ban anyone who is subject to a stalking or domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms while that order is in effect. They could resume possession after the court was satisfied that their threatening behavior was no longer occurring.

    – Ban anyone convicted of domestic violence from buying or possessing any firearm.

    Since I personally knew one of the three women who was killed over the last couple of years in a high-profile domestic violence case, I will say that to me this new law allows PLENTY of due process protection. It is not a trivial matter for someone to go get a restraining order.

    An abuser that has guns can inflict absolute terror on the person they are abusing. Just put yourself in the shoes of a person who’s being abused. What if one day someone you knew well came to you and said, “I’ve got a gun, I know where you live, work, and I know your kids and you’re all on the hit list. Just sayin'” Only an idiot wouldn’t be frightened out of their minds at this, but it happens all the time.

    I think many guys have the idea that a spiteful ex-wife, partner or girlfriend could make a bunch of stuff up and get the guy’s guns taken away by filling out a form. I’m calling BS. It doesn’t happen unless they did a lot of very dumb stuff.

    I’m all in favor of criminal control because woman-beating / child-abusing perps with guns make legit gun owners look bad all the time. I don’t need perps on my side.

    Grouse

    farmerpet
    Hastings Mn
    Posts: 45
    April 30, 2014 at 10:47 am #1407320

    Do not support this but do agree we need punish with the laws that are already there in black and white.

    patk
    Nisswa, MN
    Posts: 1997
    April 30, 2014 at 11:52 am #1407363

    Quote:

    I think the law makes sense but I hate giving these people and inch because they will abuse that win.

    It’s too bad that so many of us feel this way. Both pro and anti camps have dug in so hard that common sense is no longer allowed for either party

    This bill looks like common sense to me and I would support it. One of the people supporting it in the legislature is one of the more ardent gun rights advocates. Check out this article from teh strib:

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/256849681.html

    Give it a read and here’s my request: no matter your prior politics please keep an open mind.

    vikefanmn77
    Northfield,MN
    Posts: 1493
    April 30, 2014 at 11:58 am #1407369

    Quote:

    Good points brought up here, so I looked up the text of the bill.

    Currently, anyone convicted of domestic violence against a spouse, partner, or child (and “domestic violence” is already defined by MN law, so it’s not a vague term open to interpretation) already is banned from owning or possessing a handgun.

    The new bill (HF 3238 would):

    – Ban anyone who is subject to a stalking or domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms while that order is in effect. They could resume possession after the court was satisfied that their threatening behavior was no longer occurring.

    – Ban anyone convicted of domestic violence from buying or possessing any firearm.

    Since I personally knew one of the three women who was killed over the last couple of years in a high-profile domestic violence case, I will say that to me this new law allows PLENTY of due process protection. It is not a trivial matter for someone to go get a restraining order.

    An abuser that has guns can inflict absolute terror on the person they are abusing. Just put yourself in the shoes of a person who’s being abused. What if one day someone you knew well came to you and said, “I’ve got a gun, I know where you live, work, and I know your kids and you’re all on the hit list. Just sayin'” Only an idiot wouldn’t be frightened out of their minds at this, but it happens all the time.

    I think many guys have the idea that a spiteful ex-wife, partner or girlfriend could make a bunch of stuff up and get the guy’s guns taken away by filling out a form. I’m calling BS. It doesn’t happen unless they did a lot of very dumb stuff.

    I’m all in favor of criminal control because woman-beating / child-abusing perps with guns make legit gun owners look bad all the time. I don’t need perps on my side.

    Grouse

    I hear ya…But…Ive got a buddy who got in an argument with his girlfriend in a public place. She went home. When he arrived, he got a whole drawer full of knives and silverware thrown at him. He grabs her and pins her down on the couch. He is then arrested for domestic assault…not her. So, under this law, he would be restricted from owning a gun. Its not right.

    TheFamousGrouse
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 11588
    April 30, 2014 at 12:18 pm #1407378

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I think the law makes sense but I hate giving these people and inch because they will abuse that win.

    It’s too bad that so many of us feel this way. Both pro and anti camps have dug in so hard that common sense is no longer allowed for either party

    This bill looks like common sense to me and I would support it. One of the people supporting it in the legislature is one of the more ardent gun rights advocates. Check out this article from teh strib:

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/256849681.html

    Give it a read and here’s my request: no matter your prior politics please keep an open mind.

    Totally agree and I try never to let ideology override common sense. This is one area where I think gun owners and gun rights advocates “gain by giving in” if you want to put it that way.

    The public perception by the non-gun owning public is that gun owners are unreasonable to the point of being crazy. Being in favor of a bill that essentially says that we, as gun owners, don’t side with perps and woman/child beaters, to me shows that we aren’t unreasonable and where there is a REAL safety issue, we’re willing to say that guns come second to life and safety.

    Especially with a law that doesn’t involve law enforcement confiscation. The guns can be turned over to any person who can legally possess them.

    I’m against gun control, but as I said, I don’t need or want criminals on my side.

    Also, I’d ask people to think, what if the abused was your sister or daughter or children/grandchildren? Would you still think “gun rights” over your sister or daughter’s safety and life?

    To me this is a no brainer and criminal control is good for all the legit gun owners out there. To me, this is no different than all the gang bangers and drug lords that get out of jail early because of liberal judges and light sentencing. Then they commit a crime and everyone calls out for “gun control”. We don’t need criminals on our side.

    Grouse

    desperado
    Posts: 3010
    April 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm #1407381

    Quote:

    I think many guys have the idea that a spiteful ex-wife, partner or girlfriend could make a bunch of stuff up and get the guy’s guns taken away by filling out a form. I’m calling BS. It doesn’t happen unless they did a lot of very dumb stuff.


    Quote:

    I hear ya…But…Ive got a buddy who got in an argument with his girlfriend in a public place. She went home. When he arrived, he got a whole drawer full of knives and silverware thrown at him. He grabs her and pins her down on the couch. He is then arrested for domestic assault…not her. So, under this law, he would be restricted from owning a gun. Its not right.

    never underestimate a spiteful ex

    TheFamousGrouse
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 11588
    April 30, 2014 at 12:32 pm #1407390

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I think many guys have the idea that a spiteful ex-wife, partner or girlfriend could make a bunch of stuff up and get the guy’s guns taken away by filling out a form. I’m calling BS. It doesn’t happen unless they did a lot of very dumb stuff.


    Quote:

    I hear ya…But…Ive got a buddy who got in an argument with his girlfriend in a public place. She went home. When he arrived, he got a whole drawer full of knives and silverware thrown at him. He grabs her and pins her down on the couch. He is then arrested for domestic assault…not her. So, under this law, he would be restricted from owning a gun. Its not right.

    never underestimate a spiteful ex

    Was he arrested for, or convicted of? Big difference.

    He doesn’t lose his guns for being arrested for something. Worst case he has to transfer them to a third party.

    Convicted is a different deal.

    Grouse

    timmy
    Posts: 1960
    April 30, 2014 at 3:02 pm #1407453

    To me, this is nothing more than feel good, warm-n-fuzzy legislation.

    It is already unlawful to physically or verbally abuse and threaten someone. It is unlawful. All this law does is add another violation to a list of them.

    It is already against the law to shoot someone……the law stops NOTHING. If you are a violent, criminally oriented person, another law isn’t going to change that.

    T

    vikefanmn77
    Northfield,MN
    Posts: 1493
    April 30, 2014 at 4:49 pm #1407476

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I think many guys have the idea that a spiteful ex-wife, partner or girlfriend could make a bunch of stuff up and get the guy’s guns taken away by filling out a form. I’m calling BS. It doesn’t happen unless they did a lot of very dumb stuff.


    Quote:

    I hear ya…But…Ive got a buddy who got in an argument with his girlfriend in a public place. She went home. When he arrived, he got a whole drawer full of knives and silverware thrown at him. He grabs her and pins her down on the couch. He is then arrested for domestic assault…not her. So, under this law, he would be restricted from owning a gun. Its not right.

    never underestimate a spiteful ex

    Was he arrested for, or convicted of? Big difference.

    He doesn’t lose his guns for being arrested for something. Worst case he has to transfer them to a third party.

    Convicted is a different deal.

    Grouse

    Both!

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.