The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) has been making noise about a piece of legislation that they are selling as an alternative to the bills being offered by gun control advocates. I voiced my concern based on what was said about the bill in the news. The bill, H1323, was officially unveiled yesterday and I can say it’s not the common sense legislation that was being promised, although it didn’t end up throwing the mentally ill under a bus as I feared. The legislation itself isn’t as bad as what is being pushed by the gun control advocates but it does reek of a desperate ploy to offer the gun control advocates a piece of meat in the hopes that they will relent and an attempt to appear, what Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned referred to as, tough on crime.
Most of the bill consists of amendments to currently existing statutes. The amendments, in general, either requires data be electronically entered into a searchable database, creates mandatory minimum sentences or flat out creates new crimes. From the viewpoint of being touch on crime the bill is effective. Being tough on crime, at least politically, necessarily means granting the state more power, which is never good for the general populace. Because of that fact I find the legislation, overall, troubling. Consider section one of the legislation:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 241.301, is amended to read:
241.301 FINGERPRINTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER STATES.
The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures so that whenever this state receives an inmate, parolee, or probationer from another state under sections 241.28 to 241.30 or 243.1605, fingerprints and thumbprints of the inmate, parolee, or probationer are obtained and forwarded to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. by electronic entry into a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension-managed or federal searchable database within 24 hours of receipt. The bureau shall convert the fingerprints and thumbprints into an electronic format for entry into the appropriate searchable database within 72 hours of receipt if the data is not entered by the commissioner.
Currently Statute 2012, section 241.301 reads:
241.301 FINGERPRINTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER STATES.
The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures so that whenever this state receives an inmate, parolee, or probationer from another state under sections 241.28 to 241.30 or 243.1605, fingerprints and thumbprints of the inmate, parolee, or probationer are obtained and forwarded to the bureau of criminal apprehension.
The statute, as it currently stands, has no mention of a database whereas the statute, under H1323, would mandate the taken fingerprints be converted into an electronic format and entered into a database either managed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions or a federal agency. Databases of people in the hands of the state are never good. I won’t post every instance in the bill where information is mandated to be added to a database, I’ll leave that up to you, but much of the bill deals with exactly that and it makes for some rather Orwellian reading.
Second 11 is also worrisome as it creates new minimum sentences:
Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.165, subdivision 1b, is amended to read:
Subd. 1b. Violent felons in possession; violation and penalty; mandatory sentences. (a) Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.
(b) A conviction and sentencing under this section shall be construed to bar a conviction and sentencing for a violation of section 624.713, subdivision 2.
(c) The criminal penalty in paragraph (a) does not apply to any person who has received a relief of disability under United States Code, title 18, section 925, or whose ability to possess firearms has been restored under subdivision 1d.
(d) Unless a longer mandatory minimum sentence is otherwise required by law or the sentencing guidelines provide for a longer presumptive executed sentence, a person convicted of violating paragraph (a) shall be committed to the commissioner of corrections for:
(1) 60 months;
(2) 120 months if the person has a prior conviction under this section, section 624.713, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), or a comparable law of another state or the United States; or
(3) 180 months if the person has a combination of two or more prior convictions under this section, section 624.713, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), or a comparable law of another state or the United States. Sentencing a person in a manner other than that described in this paragraph is a departure from the sentencing guidelines.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.
I don’t like prisons, they’re a form of collective punishment as the taxed are forced to pay for the food, water, clothing, housing, and guarding of those convicted of crimes. Minimum sentences are nothing more than a forced duration of how long the taxed are forced to pay for a convicted man’s incarceration. On top of being a form of collective punishment prisons, especially as they exist in the United States, are ineffective. Norwegian’s Bastoy prison island, a novel facility that actually treats prisoners like human beings while requiring them to provide heavily for their own needs, has a recidivism rate of 16% compared to the United States rate of 67.5%. We should be focusing on alternatives to the United States prison industrial complex instead of putting more people in those ineffective cages for longer periods of time. I don’t see the justice in punishing the taxed and putting people in cages, which is why I find this section particularly offensive.
Section 12 specifically makes it illegal to falsely report lost or stolen firearms:
Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.505, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
(1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
(2) violates paragraph (a) while knowing that the firearm has been transferred to someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Under the proposed “assault weapon” ban many people discussed how they would simply report their “assault weapons” as lost. Reporting firearms as lost is one possible way to avoid a gun grab. If H1323 passes, and an “assault weapon” ban later passes, the police will have grounds to kidnap and charge you with a gross misdemeanor if you claim you lost your “assault weapons.” Personally I would prefer it if the police didn’t have grounds for kidnapping me if I reported my arms as lost.
Section 15 is interesting as it would prevent a prohibited person from legally possessing ammunition as well as firearms. I’m not sure why this was added but it’s entirely unnecessary and bordering ridiculous. If a person can’t legally possess a firearm then possessing ammunition is irrelevant since ammunition is meaningless without a firearm and somebody willing to violate a prohibition against possessing a firearm is almost certainly willing to violate a prohibition against possessing ammunition. This section also includes a minor change of language that I’m baffled by:
(3) a person who is or has ever been ordered committed in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, as defined in section 253B.02, to a treatment facility, whether or not the order was stayed, or who has ever been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, unless the person’s ability to possess a firearm has been restored under subdivision 4 6;
Perhaps I’m wrong about this but if a person has been ordered committed and they refuse to go aren’t they violating a court order and therefore committing a crime? Aren’t redundancy like that what gun rights advocates continuously criticize when new laws are added to the books? Is there some point to adding this language other than to appear touch on crime?
Section 16 creates more minimum sentences, this time for prohibited persons in possession of firearms or ammunition. What I stated about Section 11 is true here, minimum sentences are not going to fix anything as the entire concept of incarceration, at least as it exists in the United States, needs to be addressed. More specifically when it comes to punishing prohibited persons it’s important to point out that many prohibited persons have no violent history, they were merely charged with a nonviolent felony. While there is some ground on which to argue for a person with a violent history being prohibited from owning arms there is absolutely no ground on which to argue for a person with no violent history being prohibited from owning arms. A catchall minimum sentence will adversely effect both violent and nonviolent individuals who violate a prohibition against owning arms.
There is some good news in the bill as Section 19 does establish some mechanism for those prohibited from owning a firearm due to a mental illness to restore their ability to legally possess a firearm:
Sec. 19. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.713, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 6. Restoration of firearms eligibility to civilly committed person; petition authorized. (a) A person who is subject to the disabilities in section 624.713, subdivision, clauses (3) and (5), or United States Code, title 18, section 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4), because of an adjudication or commitment that occurred under the laws of this state may petition the court in which the adjudication or commitment proceedings occurred or a district court of competent jurisdiction to remove all the disabilities. A copy of the petition for relief shall be served upon the county attorney’s office of the jurisdiction in which the petition is filed. The department or office may, as it deems appropriate, represent the interests of the state in the restoration proceedings.
(b) The court shall receive and consider evidence in a closed proceeding, including evidence offered by the petitioner, concerning:
(1) the circumstances regarding the firearm disabilities from which relief is sought;
(2) the petitioner’s mental health and criminal history records, if any;
(3) the petitioner’s reputation, developed at a minimum through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence; and
(4) changes in the petitioner’s condition or circumstances since the original adjudication or commitment relevant to the relief sought. The court shall grant the petition for relief if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. A record shall be kept of the proceedings, but it shall remain confidential and be disclosed only to a court in the event of an appeal. The petitioner may appeal a denial of the requested relief, and review on appeal shall be de novo.
(c) The court administrator shall promptly electronically transmit information of the order granting relief to the person under this section to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or to any official issuing a permit under section 624.7131, 624.7132, or 624.714 and notify the United States Attorney General that the basis for the person’s record of firearm disabilities being made available no longer applies.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.
Honestly this is all the bill should have been, a mechanism for those who have had their legal ability to possess a firearm because of a mental illness to seek redress. While that one nugget of good is nice to see, Section 20 continues the bad by creating a felony for being unable to read minds:
Sec. 20. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.7141, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. Felony. A violation of this section is a felony:
(1) if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence; or
(2) if the transferor knows the transferee intends to use the weapon in the furtherance of a felony crime of violence.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.
How is somebody supposed to know if the person buying their firearm intends to use it to commit a felony? Section 22 effectively makes straw purchases more illegal, unless you’re a law enforcement officer (how else are they going to buy firearms to smuggle to Mexican drug cartels), and the remainder of the bill just demands more data be entered into government managed databases.
My only real question is this: why was a bill introduced at all? Do gun rights activists really believe that gun control advocates will back off if we offer them a sufficient compromise? Gun owners have compromised with gun control advocates numerous times and they have always come back for more. This bill implements nothing that would have prevented the Connecticut shooting, which is what sparked this insanity. The Connecticut shooter murdered his mother and stole her firearms. No amount of data in government managed databases, background checks, or mental health evaluations would have prevented that. There is nothing in this bill would have prevented that. Reading through this legislation, with the exception of Section 19, reeks of a foolhardy attempt to appear tough on crime in the hopes of satisfying statists. No bill, need to get tougher on crime, or data in government managed databases is necessary. In fact we have too many laws on the books as it is.
I leave you to make your own decision regarding this bill. As an anarchist I’m not going to meddle in the affairs of the state or spend my time begging politicians to support or reject legislation. What I will say is that this legislation isn’t good and I wouldn’t write letters or make phone calls to politicians urging them to support it. If you’re going to meddle in the state’s affairs then encourage the politicians to take no action, they’ve done enough damage already.