Via the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum Facebook page we now have a list of gun control legislation that will be moving through the Minnesota political machinery. Looking at the list it appears to be a classic throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks strategy.
HF0238 would change the penalty for permit holders carrying a firearm on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.
HF0239 would increase the penalties for carrying on private property after being commanded to leave. As it currently sits the first such offense by a permit holder is a petty misdemeanor but would be increased to a gross misdemeanor while the second offense would be raised to a felony.
HF0240 would effectively change Minnesota’s permit system from shall issue to may issue for any person who have had past police contact by allowing Sheriffs to mandate such permit applicants get a sign off from a mental health professional. The text of this requirement reads as follows:
(b) When the applicant has had past police contacts that indicate dangerous or violent behavior, chemical dependency, serious mental illness, or a physical condition involving mental incompetence, the chief of police or sheriff, as a condition of granting the permit, may require that the applicant obtain a letter from a state licensed primary care physician or state certified mental health professional, or both, affirming that, in the person’s professional opinion, the applicant is not seriously mentally ill or chemically dependent, and does not have a physical condition involving mental incompetence such that the person would be likely to be violent or a danger to self or others. The chief of police or sheriff must take the letter under consideration but is not required to treat the letter as determinative or conclusive in the decision to issue or deny the permit. Any such requirement by the chief of police or sheriff suspends the count on the waiting period beginning at the time the requirement is determined until the required letter or letters are provided.
When I say the system would become may issue for individuals who have had past police contact I mean that certified mental health professional, by simply being unwilling to grant you a clean bill of health (it’s not hard to justify such a refusal, mental health is such a subjective thing), will have the power to decide whether or not such an applicant can obtain a permit.
HF0241 is your standard “assault weapon” ban. Effectively anything that currently requires a Minnesota permit to purchase or permit to carry to obtain would be verboten. In addition to the historical list the bill would also prohibit any firearms that meet the following criteria:
(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;
(3) semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(4) semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock;
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or
(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(5) shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(6) conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. The term does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective September 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.
This criteria matched up with the federal ban that Feinstein introduced. Basically everything cool would be prohibited by this legislation.
HF0242 would prohibit the manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The most notable piece of this legislation is the lack of any grandfathering:
Sec. 3. PERSONS POSSESSING LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on August 1, 2013, is in possession of a large-capacity magazine has 120 days to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) permanently alter the magazine so it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;
(2) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; or
(3) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
In other words your options are to gimp your magazine, take it out of the state, or hand it over to the state without compensation, once again demonstrating that you don’t own property and you’re merely being allowed to use property so long as the state allows you to. So much for the Fifth Amendment (not that it ever actually protected your property anyways).
It is my guess that the politicians who introduced these bills don’t believe they can all pass. Instead I’m guessing they’re hoping at least one or two of these bills pass, which would give them new laws in their war against gun owners. Effectively the gun control advocates in the state want more leeway to kidnap and cage nonviolent gun owners. Just remember, that the standard and accepted procedure for dealing with these types of proposed prohibitions is to energetically beg your masters to be lenient. If they choose to be lenient you should thank them and bestow them with praise and gifts and if they choose not to be lenient you should roll over and accept it like a good little slave.