http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/199000631.html

The full UBG version is supported both both Chiefs and Officer's associations but Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek supports the version without UBG.

The NRA backed counter proposal is not bad http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/ci_22728818/modest-gun-law-revisions-be-revealed-by-minnesota?source=pkg

I would not be upset to see the non-UBG version with increased straw buyer penalties become law, in this case I think the UBG is worth fighting for. I don't see anything unduly burdensome in that. I disagree with Stanek that in BG check system needs to be improved before passing UBG. There would be more impetus to fixing the system if it is in wider use.

I prefer the one with UBC... back at ya

If it doesn't pass, the other is ok- increasing penalties for illegal transfers etc. but w/out UBC it is much less effective. Between the two, I support Paymar's UBC bill and think if it passes committee, it has a very good chance of getting to Gov. Dayton.

If you really mean that, ....... then please don't even discuss a "fall back" postition that "would be OK". TIA!

According to the report, UBC only applies to handguns and military style rifles. Universal should be universal, apply UBC to all firearms otherwise there is just a loophole waiting to happen...

edit add-I more brought up the secondary bill as I find it strange for the Henn. Co Sheriff to support the less sweeping bill. Not something one expects of a metro area sheriff

which I fail to understand. If they are law abiding and not felons, there should be no problem. But an even weaker bill is not the solution either.

and bought, sold, and given away on group hunting trips. The kinds of executive trips like the one Cheney was on when he burnt down his friend are often about trading guns too..I assume UBC would require a check even in these circumstances...

I agree absolutely. This would be nonsense.

Are you sure the Paymar bill was worded like this? It doesn't sound logical.

I happened to catch Fox 9's report while channel flipping. They may be just taking it from the bill title and the wording does actually call for universal checks. KSTP reported it as expanding background checks without fully elaborating. I am unable to find a full text version of the bill.

Seems Biden is taking interest:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2968764.shtml?cat=1


Edit- found the proposed text

Makes not much sense to me. BB may be right about hunters, many are pro-gun control- until it affects them. I would rather see one standard applied to all sales.

........ but you mentioned hearing it on FAUX!

our local foxer is fairly even but I prefer to at least fact check through the other affiliates

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF237&ls_year=88&session_year=2013&session_number=0

Here is the author's amendment.http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/0H0237DE5.pdf

Summary of the author's amendment: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/0H0237DE5.pdf

Partial text of summary: "Article 1: Firearm Background Checks and Transfers
Overview
This article modifies a variety of provisions of firearms law relating to the transfer and purchase of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons and to eligibility criteria for possessing a firearm.


Information. Requires that an applicant for a permit to purchase must submit a government-issued photo ID. Also changes the current reference to the firearms eligibility statute (Minn. Stat. § 624.713) to state or federal law.

Grounds for disqualification. Requires a chief of police or sheriff to deny a permit to purchase application if the applicant is either ineligible to possess firearms or is determined to be a danger to self or others. Changes the current reference to the firearms eligibility statute (Minn. Stat. § 624.713) to state or federal law

Granting of permits. Authorizes a new $25 fee for a permit to purchase. Changes the current reference to the firearms eligibility statute (Minn. Stat. § 624.713) to state or federal law. Also provides that if a chief or sheriff is unable to verify the identification of any applicant, they may require the applicant to appear in-person to present a government-issued photo ID, in which case the seven-day waiting period is extended to 30 days. . . .

Transfers by or through licensed dealers only. Mandates that any transfer of a pistol or semi-automatic assault weapon between two private citizens, neither of whom is a federally licensed firearms dealer, must be routed through a dealer. The dealer may charge a fee of up to $25. The dealer must take the pistol or weapon into possession, and then follow federal requirements for transferring it to the intended buyer, including performance of an FBI background check through the NICS.
If unable to deliver it to the buyer, the dealer must run a background check on the seller, before returning it to the seller. If neither person is eligible to possess the pistol or weapon, the dealer must not transfer it to either the buyer or seller, and instead must transfer the firearm to the chief of police or sheriff within 24 hours, and report identifying information on the buyer and seller as directed.
Exempts auctioneers from the requirements of this section."

and asked them to support Paymar's bill. None happen to be my own representative, but I pointed out that 1) law abiding gun owners have no problems going through a background check; 2) such checks are important to public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (or at least making it more difficult for them to acquire guns; and 3) as a resident of Minneapolis I am particularly vulnerable to gun violence resulting from sales to criminals that could be prevented through background checks.

I agree, BainesBane. Without the UBC,.....just raising the penalties for straw sales is meaningless.

Increased penalties do nothing IF YOU CAN'T GET CONVICTIONS!

Without the UBC, the straw dealer merely needs to claim that he didn't know the buyer was ineligible.

Without the UBC, the increased penalties are meaningless "feel-good" BS! And we know the gun nutters would be just alright with that!

with the above post. Disinformation can be really destructive.

.....and the roll calls on these votes made public?

Here is the website of the House. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/

They are in recess until 7 pm tonight.

ADDED COVERAGE - House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee - part 2
Tuesday, Mar. 19, 2013 7:00 PM
Watch: Live Event | Enhanced version
Continued discussion and final vote on HF237 (Paymar) Pistol and semiautomatic military-style assault weapon transfer and firearm possession eligibility provisions modified, and criminal penalties provided.


http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/mnhouse.asx

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF237&version=0&session=ls88&session_year=2013&session_number=0

It requires the seller and buyer to go to an FFL. The new NY law seems to cover all that is needed (buyer goes to the FFL).

The new bill will extend to gun shows but not private sales.


"The farthest-reaching gun control bill in the Minnesota House, which would have expanded background checks to nearly all firearm sales, has been greatly diminished, instead expanding checks to include all purchases at gun shows but not including other private gun sales or transfers.

The House Public Safety and Finance Committee was scheduled to vote on the bill Tuesday, March 19. But chairman and bill sponsor Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, pulled it about 8:15 p.m., after a nearly nine-hour recess.

Paymar said after the meeting that his bill was dead and he is trying to push an alternative proposal that extends background checks to just gun shows.

Paymar has enough votes to get the watered-down version out of his committee."


http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/ci_22821997/minnesota-house-panel-takes-up-background-checks-guns

Background checks at gun shows.

I'll tell you how that works..... or actually doesn't work........

The illegal buyer goes into the gun show and finds a private seller. The illegal buyer arranges to pay the seller's price.....but "wants to get around the cost of the background check". So they meet somewhere else (or even the parking lot of the gun show) and completes the deal.

That's how it's done in Colorado.

I hope the folks of MN got the names of those who caved on the Paymar bill!

but the Star Trib article names those who opposed it.

Were they thinking that the universal background check issue will be taken care of at the federal level and not worth the fight in MN? OR...... did they just cave? Hoping the former.