Saturday, March 7, 2015

Minnesota Gun Bill HF1361/SF1289

--( Since 1989, Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) has been your gun rights watchdog at the Capitol. We get the job done with your support.

When the Bloomberg money keeps flowing, the gun controllers keep finding new ways to take away guns — and rights. This year’s attempt is the most despicable, underhanded attempt we’ve ever seen.

This week, Rep. Dan Schoen and Sen. Ron Latz introduced…well, we call it the Sign Away Your Rights & Rat Out Your Family Act. The Bloomberg bill, HF1361/SF1289, starts with the assumption that every gun owner is a ticking time bomb. The bill would encourage doctors to trick you into giving up your gun rights, and encourage your most anti-gun family member to petition a court to take away your Second Amendment rights.

Tricks And Kicks Gun Owners When They’re Down

Everyone has moments in life where things seem hopeless. A death in the family, a job loss, PTSD from military service, a divorce… Responsible gun owners know that a doctor or psychologist can help. But this bill would encourage doctors to trick you into signing away your rights!

Imagine: there you are. You’re hurting. You go see a professional. He listens, then says he can help. He gives you a pile of forms to sign. Buried among them is a form created by this bill — one that puts you on the NICS no-buy list. “Voluntarily.”


  1. The bill is a good one, and frankly I think shrinks should be able to put anyone on the list they think should not be buying guns because of their mental health status.

    The hysterical fear mongering that your health care provider is going to try to trick you or deceive you is ridiculous - but on a par with some of the really stupid shit we've seen from the pro-gunners.

    1. I thought that part was pretty funny too. But it's what we've come to expect from Ammoland.

    2. " I think shrinks should be able to put anyone on the list they think should not be buying guns because of their mental health status."

      Howdy DG, there is already a procedure for that in place that adjudicates a person as mentally ill ant therefor can no longer possess firearms. There is even a way to reverse the status if their person is no longer a threat.
      I imagine the issue you have with this process is that it includes things like due process. It sounds like you'd prefer something along the lines of sending in a form.
      As for the potential for someone not realizing what they are signing, that concern could have been easily precluded by including a few procedural safeguards into the bill. But that, along with the procedure on how to get your rights back didn't get thought out.
      Perhaps we should treat it like a confession and require the person to stand before a judge so the judge can talk to him and insure there is an understanding of what's being signed and what happens afterwards.

    3. Dig gone: "...and frankly I think shrinks should be able to put anyone on the list they think should not be buying guns because of their mental health status."

      I would hope shrinks would have the professional integrity to not violate their patient/doctor confidentiality oath just because you think they should.

    4. I don't see that due process is necessarliy eliminated from this initiative. That is, other than the paranoid nonsense Ammoland has to say about it.

    5. An ex parte order goes into effect with the judge only seeing the petitioner's side of the story. Then there is a hearing where the person against whom the order is applied can challenge the evidence after the fact.

  2. If you're too dumb to read what you sign, you're not qualified to have a gun.

    1. Perhaps we should include a cooling off period like we do for other types of contracts in Minnesota law such as,

      Home Solicitation Sales
      Life Insurance Policies
      Hearing Aids
      Extended Car Warranties
      Military Personnel
      Debt Management and Debt Settlement Services Contracts
      Credit Services Contracts
      Membership Travel Contracts
      Health Clubs, Social Referral Clubs, and Buying Clubs

      and so on. I should hope that something as serious as the surrender of a civil right would have some of the same protections as committing to a car warranty.

    2. Superb idea, SSG. I'd rather see this abomination of a bill go down in ignominious flames, but if that is not to be, your proposal would go a long way to mitigating the tragic harm inherent to such legislation.

  3. lying gun nuts

    So, ignoring for the time being this dubious notion of the existence of "gun nuts," where is the lie?

    1. The lie, Kurt, is that doctors are going to trick you into "signing away your rights."

      The entire last paragraph is a bizarre paranoid lie, Kurt. It's what you guys thrive on.

  4. This bill has so many potential issues. But lets set the stage by going back to the last session. Last session, a bill was introduced to prohibit possession of firearms for those under a protection order. The bill only allowed firearms to be turned over either to law enforcement of an FFL. It also applied to ex parte orders which means you would lose your right to possess a firearm without due process.
    During the hearings, which I watched online, the author, Sen. Latz did some hemming and hawing when these issues were brought up by those opposing the bill, suggesting it was an oversight. With input from the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA), after changes were made to make the law only apply to orders in force after a hearing before a judge and allowed the option to transfer the firearms to a third party.
    Now move forward to this year, and we have the same issues in this bill as was present in the last, and then some. We again see these "red flag" orders applying to ex parte orders and only allowing the transfer of firearms to either law enforcement or an FFL.
    But lets start with the two ways in this bill you can lose your gun rights. Under the voluntary system, You sign some sort of form to have yourself put on the prohibited list in the NICS system for however long they wish to. Again, the firearms can only be transferred to an FFL or law enforcement, not a third party, and while there is a process to lose your rights, the process to get your rights and your firearms back really isn't thought out. All we see in the bill is,

    "The commissioner shall establish a retention schedule and a process by which an
    individual can have the individual's name removed from the voluntary database."

    Another question I'd have, is how difficult is it to get your name off the NICS prohibited person list? I can foresee the process of getting your rights back being much more difficult than you signing them away.
    Now lets look at the "red flag" orders. The biggest issue is that its part of the civil protection order process which would permit a citizen to lose their rights under a much lower of proof than in a criminal court. Protection orders are often used to secure an advantage in divorces and there is rarely any prosecution of false reports.
    As long as we're on the subject of Minnesota gun bills, lets look at some of other bills that have been introduced for consideration this session,

    Rep. Hackbarth introduced HF1289, which would put a constitutional amendment adding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the 2016 ballot.

    During a state of emergency, Governor Dayton could shut down gun stores and ranges, ban the sale of ammo, or even order door-to-door gun confiscation of your guns. Rep. Jim Newberger's HF722 would strip him of that power.

    Sen. Paul Gazelka (my Senator) introduced SF1435, the bipartisan Senate companion to House File 1434, legalizing suppressors in Minnesota.

    HF372 by Rep. Jim Nash would remove the prior notification requirement for permit holders to carry on the State Capitol grounds.

    There are some others out there, but those are the big ones.