Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MEMBERS I'D LIKE TO MAKE A
COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSE
TO WHAT OCCURRED AND MAKE A
MOTION. THE COMMITTEE CAN
PROCEED WITH DELIBERATIONS.
THERE APPEARS TO BE A
MISUNDERSTANDING AS MR. RENIER
WAS STATING THE BILL PROPOSES TO
BAN TRANSFERS IT DOES NOT. IT IS
NOT PROPOSED A BAN TRANSFERS IT
SIMPLY PROPOSES TO PROVIDE WHAT
I WOULD TURN A VERY MINOR
INCONVENIENCE OF GOING THROUGH A
BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE BEING
ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSFER.
A PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED
BACKGROUND CHECK. I'M NOT SURE
OR THE ADDITION OF THE $25 FEE
IS CONNECTION WITH THAT WE THE
PROPOSAL REFUSES TO EITHER
MANDATE A FEE OR NOT FROM A
PRIVATE LICENSED FIREARMS
DEALER BUT IT CERTAINLY ALLOWS
FOR THAT FEAT TO BE CHARGED THAT
THE FIREARM IS A WISHES TO DO SO
WE HAVE CONTROL OVER WHETHER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN DO THE FEE
BUT WERE NOT PROPOSING TO MANAGE
ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO A FEAT
FOR A FIREARMS DEALER
THEMSELVES. AND MR. RITTER SAID
WERE PROPOSING TO GIVE
EXEMPTIONS TO FAMILY MEMBERS
THEREFORE WERE NOT MAKING THIS
UNIVERSAL SEEMS TO ME OF MAKING
EXCEPTIONS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS
WAS ON THE THAT THE NRA AND GUN
OWNERS WANTED US TO DO. NOW THAT
IT'S INCLUDED IN THE BILL EVEN
BROADER THAN WAS IN THE ORIGINAL
BILL WE ARE BEING CASTIGATED FOR
IT AS SOME OF NO LONGER BEING
UNIVERSAL. I DON'T THINK THEY
APPRECIATED NOR WOULD
MINNESOTANS IF WE CLOSE THAT
LOOPHOLE. I'M NOT GOING TO
PROPOSE TO DO THAT. THE POINT IS
NOT TO TRACK THE TRANSFER OF
FIREARMS THE POINT IS TO DO A
BACKGROUND CHECK HOW THE
TRANSFERASE THAT IS THE POINT TO
KEEP THE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN ELIGIBLE TO
POSSESS THEM. PROFESSOR OLSON
RAISE THE ISSUES OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S
SUPPOSED TO ALSO TO USING TO
INCLUDING THE CONFINEMENT
LANGUAGE IN VOLUNTARY OR NOT AND
THAT AND I WILL INDICATE I'M
OPEN TO WORKING ON THOSE
PROVISIONS OF OPEN TO DISCUSSING
THOSE PROVISIONS I MAY BE
PERSUADED BY PROFESSOR OLSON ON
THIS. MR. NASH DID MAKE A
COMMENT THAT A SEVENTH JURY TO
OUR LOAN WAS NOT ENOUGH LIKE
OURS TO BE THE PROVISION IN THE
BILL AND CURRENT STATUTE AT 12
HOURS WOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT I
THOUGHT I WAS TRYING TO
ACCOMMODATE THE INTEREST OF GUN
OWNERS BY EXTENDING THAT TO 72
HOURS BUT I GUESS WE CAN SEE HOW
THE PROCESS GOES. I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO MR.
GROSS THAT THERE IS NO SECOND
AMENDMENT ISSUE HERE I WOULD
SAY FIRST THE SECOND AMENDMENT
IS NOT ABSOLUTE. THE SECOND
AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE
ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE THE RIGHT TO
HAVE UNFETTERED ACCESS TO
FIREARMS. WE ALREADY KNOW THE
SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE
CONVICTED OF FELONY CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE TO POSSESS FIREARMS OR
THERE IS INDEED IS A DISPUTE
OVER A CONSTITUTIONAL ON THAT
QUESTION. SIMILARLY WITH THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED FOR
HAVING SEVERE SIGNIFICANT
PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS MENTAL
ILLNESSES ALL WE ARE SEEKING TO
DO HIS TO PROVIDE A SYSTEM BY
WHICH THE INFORMATION IS BETTER
COMMUNICATED TO THE EXISTING
BACKGROUND CHECKS WHEREBY WE ARE
ACTUALLY ABLE TO HAVE MEANINGFUL
HE YES DISCRETION ON THE PARTS
OF THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS IN THE STATE POLICE
CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS TO NOT ONLY
LEARN ABOUT WHAT AND EVALUATE
WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE
KINDS OF MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
AND THE BACKGROUNDS AND YES
CONTACTS WITH THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S AND DETERMINE
WHETHER SOMEONE IS IN JUST A
BAD CRANKY TEENAGER WHO ONCE HAD
CONTACT WITH THE POLICE OR
WHETHER THE CRANKINESS WAS A
SYMPTOM OF SOME ONGOING ISSUES
THAT MAY BE THE NEIGHBORS WOULD
PREFER THAT KRINKIE TEENAGER NOW
OF ADULT NOT HAVE A 45 MAGNUM IN
HIS POSSESSION WHEN HE'S WALKING
DOWN THE STREET. I A THINK WE
CAN LEGISLATE FOR EVERY
PARTICULAR EFFECT SITUATION I
THINK WE CAN LEGISLATIVE
STANDARDS AND HAVE SOME TRUST IN
OUR CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS TO APPLY THE STANDARDS
AND IN INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WITH DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF
APPEAL. SO MEMBERS OR ONE TO BE
FACED WITH A CHOICE HERE WE CAN
CLOSE THE GAP IN BACKGROUND
CHECKS AS LOW BUT LIKE BUILDING
A DAM THAT 60 PERCENT ACROSS THE
RIVER. HIST 60 PERCENT OF ALL
PRIVATE SALES NOW OF FIREARMS
ARE COVERED BY BACKGROUND CHECKS
BECAUSE TO GO THROUGH LICENSED
FIREARM DEALERS THE OTHER 40
PERCENT ARE TO IF YOU BUILD A
DAM ONLY PARTWAY ACROSS THE
RIVER THE WATER WILL FIND A WAY
AROUND THE DAM TO VOTE ON THE
RIVER. YOU HAVE TO NOT ONLY
SHORE UP THE DAMAGE TO HAVE
WHICH IS A LOT OF WHAT THE
SENATE OR THE BILL DOES THE BILL
BUT THEN THE REST OF THE WAY
ACROSS THE RIVER SO YOU IN FACT
ARE CAPTURING ALL OF THOSE IN
ELIGIBLE PERSONS IN THE
BACKGROUND CHECKS. ANOTHER
ANALOGY I'VE HEARD BEFORE WAS IF
PEOPLE ARE BOARDING AN AIRPLANE
AND THE ONLY HAD 60 PERCENT OF
THE PASSENGERS GO THROUGH A
SECURITY SCREENING AT THE
AIRPORT. THE OTHER 40% COULD
JUST WALK RIGHT ON THROUGH AND
GET ON THE PLANE. WOULD YOU BE
COMFORTABLE GETTING ON A PLANE
KNOWING THAT IS THE SECURITY
SITUATION? I SUBMIT A STRONG
MAJORITY MINNESOTANS WOULD NOT
BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE
ANALOGOUS SITUATION AND
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PURCHASES
OF GUNS. THE FACT IS GUN
VIOLENCE IS AN EPIDEMIC MEMBERS
OF THEIR A THOUSAND DEATHS A
MONTH IN THIS NATION FROM GUNS
AND THEY'RE MOSTLY NOT A PERFECT
MASS SHOOTINGS THAT WE READ
ABOUT IN THE PAPERS AND SEE ON
TV THERE MOSTLY IN ONES AND TWOS
WITH PISTOLS ON THE STREETS OF
OUR COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY HERE TO MAKE
MEANINGFUL AND VERY LOW BURDEN
BACKGROUND CHECK TO TRY TO STOP
THOSE WHO ARE IN ELIGIBLE FROM
POSSESSING FIREARMS FROM GETTING
THEM. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
FOR THE BILLS IN THEIR ENTIRETY
AND WITH THAT SAID MADAM CHAIR I
WILL ASK THE COMMITTEE IF YOU
LIKE HAVE SOME FURTHER
DISCUSSION ON IT AND WHEN THE
TIME IS APPROPRIATE WILL MOVE
THE A-6 AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
>> THANK YOU SENATOR LATZ LET'S
TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY
IF WE CAN PLEASE. ANY QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS?
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
SENATOR LATZ EARLY EVENING YOU
ESTABLISH THE RULES OF PLAY FOR
THE PEOPLE ASSEMBLED HERE. I'VE
NEVER ONCE HEARD A CHAIR THE
COMMITTEE SAY THAT THE PEOPLE OF
OUR STATE COULDN'T EVEN EXPRESS
AN OPINION BY NODDING THEIR
HEAD. I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD
THAT AFTER ALL THESE ARE
AMERICAN CITIZENS I SUPPOSE WERE
TALKING ABOUT A SECOND MAN AND
NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. I'VE NEVER
HEARD THAT IN 25 YEARS TO BE IN
OFFICE. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN
PEOPLE GET A LITTLE WHILE BOB
AND WE WANT TO TONE DOWN THE
RHETORIC AND KEEP THE
DISCUSSION TO A REASONABLE
EFFORT AND WE'RE REALLY DO NOT
APPRECIATE LOUD PROTESTS BUT THE
NODDING OF AHEAD I CAN'T BELIEVE
I HEARD THAT THIS MORNING FOR
THIS AFTERNOON
>> MADAM CHAIR MAN RESPOND BY
SENATOR LIMMER WAS PASSING ALONG
REQUEST FROM ONE OF YOUR SENATE
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ON THIS
COMMITTEE SO PERHAPS YOU OUGHT
TO DIRECT YOUR CONCERNS TO YOUR
COLLEAGUES WHO WERE DISTRACTED
BY IT. IT ISSUED A SCREEN THAT
OUT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, WHETHER I TAKE
>> YOUR COMMENTS TO HEART.
>> IS A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT
KNOWN TO DENY OUR PEOPLE RIGHT
TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. WE
SHOULDN'T BE SO SENSITIVE THAT
IF SOMEONE SITTING ACROSS THE
ROOM AND A DISAGREE WITH
SOMETHING I SAY I BETTER PAY
HEED TO THAT. I THINK FOR
BEGINNING TO PAY THE SESSION IS
GETTING ALONG IT WERE BEGINNING
TO BUMP INTO EACH OTHER A LITTLE
BIT BUT I THINK WE ALL SHOULD
HAVE A REASON TO PAUSE AND
REMEMBER WHO WE ARE WORKING FOR.
THE OTHER, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY
IS AFTER LOOKING OVER YOUR BILL
AND KNOWING WHERE THE VOTES ARE
IN THE SENATE AS WELL AS IN THE
OTHER BODY, I THINK OF A BILL
THAT'S NOT GOING TO PASS. SO ALL
THE EFFORT THAT WE'VE BEEN
PUTTING INTO THIS ALL THE
HEADLINES ALL THE ATTENTION TO
THE GUN ISSUE I THINK WILL BE
FOR NAUGHT DO TO YOUR BILL. I
THINK IT CRATED AND TO HAVE THE
OF THE BILL TO BE CARRIED I USE
EVERY GUN HAD OUNCE I DON'T
THINK IT CAN PASS OUT OF THE
SENATE. I WILL EVEN OUT OF EVEN
MORE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THIS
BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
CHAIR IF WE ARE TRYING TO WORK
ON SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN
AGREE WITH.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
SENATOR LATZ I CONSIDER THIS TO
BE A HOSTILE TAKEOVER OF MY BILL
I DON'T SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING WITH MY WORK. AND THE WORK
OF OTHERS WHO HELPED ME TO LEARN
ABOUT THESE ISSUES ESPECIALLY
ABOUT THE TAX INDEX. I ALSO
THINK IT'S HOSTEL FOR YOU TO
REFUSE TO TAKE A VOTE ON MY BILL
SENATE FILE 1359 AND PUT IT ON
THE AGENDA AS ONLY DISCUSSION
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WOULD PASS
THIS COMMITTEE AND I BELIEVED IT
WOULD HAVE STRONG SUPPORT IN THE
MINNESOTA SENATE. MORE
IMPORTANTLY SENATOR LATZ I
BELIEVE THIS EFFORT IS HOSTILE
TO LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS IN THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA. IT IS ALSO
HOSTILE TO THEIR PERSONAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS. MORE PORTLY AT
ITS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WHICH
CREATES THE RIGHT OF GUN
OWNERSHIP NOT PRIVILEGE. IT
IMPOSES ON MINNESOTANS RIGHTS
SO THAT UNDER YOUR BILL IF I
UNDERSTAND IT, YOU'RE BORN TO
TRY TO REGULATE THOSE PRIVATE
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS OVER THE BACKYARD
FENCE. YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO
EXTEND TIME FOR OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO DECIDE WHEN A
PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO A GUN OR
NOT TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS
YOUR INTEREST AND THEN UP TO 30
DAYS. HERE ARE THE GREAT
DISCRETION WHETHER IS NONE NOW
ON A MINNESOTA LAW WHEN WE
PASSED A CONCEALED CARRY LAW WE
ALL AGREED THAT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT SHOULD HAVE A SHALL
ISSUE REQUIREMENT SO THERE
WASN'T DISCRETION SO THOSE
SHARES OF THE CHIEFS WEREN'T
MAKING ARBITRARY DECISIONS THAT
WASN'T ONE WAY WITH ONE
APPLICANT AND ANOTHER WITH
ANOTHER. AND THEIR PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS WOULD GET IN THE
WAY THAT THERE WOULD BE REQUIRED
UNDER MINNESOTA LAW TO FILL THE
RIGHT WHEN SOMEONE DOES APPLY
FOR PERMITS. INSTEAD NOW YOU'RE
GOING TO REQUIRE THEM NOT EVEN
MAY REQUIRE THEM TO LOOK AT ALL
PRIOR CONTACTS WITH INDIVIDUALS
WHO APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND
CONSIDER THEM IN A PERMIT
APPLICATION. WHEN YOU DO THAT
YOUR BEST THEM TO CONSIDER
CONTACTS THAT HAD NEVER BEEN
THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS VARMINT
THEY'RE NOT EVEN ADDRESS THERE
JUST CAN'T TAX. THEY'RE
COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND
DETERMINING THE BASIS FOR
DENYING SOMEONE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THEN EVEN
WORSE IMPOSE ON FOLKS
INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL THOMAS
MADAM CHAIR NO DUE PROCESS SO WE
MAY HAVE RETURNING VETERANS WHO
WON'T WANT TO GET HELP WHO WILL
WANT TO GO TO A SEMINAR HOLD IT
MIGHT FEAR THAT THEY MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO THEN EXERCISE THEIR
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. YOU'VE
CHANGED MANY THE LEGAL
STANDARDS. IT SEEMS TO ME
SENATOR LATZ THAT THIS IS A VERY
SELFISH ACT HERE BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD PASS
SENATE FILE 1359 I THINK IT
WOULD I THINK THE SENATE WOULD
WE SHOULD BE TARGETING GUN CRIME
AND NOT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. WE
SHOULD CRACK DOWN ON STRAW
PURCHASES WHICH SHOULD IMPROVE
THE STATE AND FEDERAL BACKGROUND
CHECK SYSTEM WHICH SHOULD
IMPROVE THE REPORTING FOR COURT
DETERMINED MENTAL HEALTH
DISQUALIFICATIONS AT CREDIT
PROCESS FOR RESTORATION OF
RIGHTS WHICH SHOULD STRENGTHEN
THE PENALTIES ON FELONS AND
REPEAT CRIMINAL OFFENDERS. WE
COULD DO ALL THAT WITHOUT
IMPOSING ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT
RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING RESIDENTS
WE DON'T NEED NEW RESTRICTIONS
ON GUN PURCHASES OR OWNERSHIP.
NEED ANY KIND OF IMPACT ON LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS WILL NEED
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS WE
DON'T NEED TO REPEAL OR ROLLBACK
THE SHALL ISSUE LOT OF THE
CONCEALED CARRY. MADAM CHAIR,
SENATOR LATZ AND MEMBERS I WISH
YOU WOULD PUT SENATE FILE 1359
BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR TOMORROW
THIS COMMITTEE COULD STILL PASS
A BILL THAT MINNESOTANS COULD
BELIEVE IN AND SUPPORT.
>> MEMBERS OF A READY TO VOTE.
SENATOR LATZ.
>> YES BECAUSE SENATOR ORTMAN,
HAS TAKEN UPON HERSELF ACCUSED
ME OF BEING HOSTILE ON A COUPLE
OF POINTS INCLUDING ON REFUSING
TO ALLOW US TO VOTE ON HER BILL.
MADAM CHAIR AS AN ACT OF
PROFESSIONAL COURTESY I AGREED
TO PUT ON THIS AGENDA A BILL
THAT WAS JUST INTRODUCED THIS
WEEK BY SENATOR ORTMAN. AN
EXTRAORDINARY ACCOMMODATION
BECAUSE MOST BILLS RHETORIC IS
AT THIS POINT IN THE SESSION
WITH A POLICY THAT THE SIGN IS
FRIDAY DOHMAN EL SNOWBALL'S
CHANCE IN AWARE OF GETTING ON
THE COMMITTEE HAD GONE UP.
SENATOR ORTMAN SPECIFICALLY
REQUESTED THAT I PUT THIS BILL
ON THE AGENDA AND I INDICATED TO
HER THAT I WOULD DO SO WITH AS
EXPRESSED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
SENATOR ORTMAN DISCUSS THE BILL
AND TO IDENTIFY THE PROVISIONS
ABOUT HER BILL THAT IS MOST
CONCERNED ABOUT AND FOR THAT
PROFESSIONAL COURTESY SHE IS
SAYING I'M THE HOSTILE OF NOT
PUTTING A TO A VOTE SENATOR
ORTMAN A TIME I WILL KNOW NOT TO
PUT YOUR BILLS ON THE AGENDA AT
ALL WHEN IT COMES IN THE SLIDE
IN THE SESSION BECAUSE NOW I AM
BEING CASTIGATED FOR I'M NOT 20
TO ADDRESS YOUR ACCUSATION OF
THIS BEING A SELFISH ACT BUT I
WILL SAY SENATOR ORTMAN AS LOWER
SHE KNOWS WHAT DO PROCESS IS AND
THIS BILL IS REPLETE WITH DUE
PROCESS THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR
STATUTES ARE REPLETE WITH DUE
PROCESS WHERE IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES A PROPERTY RIGHT
IS TAKEN AWAY FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL AND POST THE
DEPRIVATION THERE IS JUDICIAL
PROCESS TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL
IT MANDATED REVIEW OF THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE AND I COULD START
LISTING ALL THE PLACES IN
STATUTE OR THAT OCCURS BUT
THERE'S NO POINT IN DOING THAT.
THE FACT IS THIS IS NOT ABOUT TO
PROCESS IT'S A VERY SIMPLE WAY A
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT LAW-
ABIDING CITIZENS OUGHT TO HAVE A
MINOR INCONVENIENCE OF HAVING
THEIR BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE
THEY'RE ABLE TO PURCHASE A
PRODUCT WHICH USED FOR ITS
INTENDED PURPOSE WILL KILL
PEOPLE AND OTHER THINGS IF IT'S
USED IN THAT MANNER. SEEMS TO
ME IT'S A VERY MINOR REGULATORY
ADDITION TO OUR FABRIC OF LAWS
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY.
>> YOU SENATOR LATZ I THINK
WE'RE READY TO VOTE.
>> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE THE
ADOPTION OF THE A-6 AMENDMENT AS
AMENDED.
>> MADAM CHAIR I WISH TO INVOKE
RULE 12.10 WHICH WOULD PUT THE
RECORD THE VOTE IN THE SENATE
JOURNAL.
>> THREE HANDS I SEE THREE HANDS
OK WILL PUT IT IN THE JOURNAL.
WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THE A-6
AMENDMENT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY
AYE ROLL CALL SORRY. TAKE THE
ROLL. CLASS
>>, YES, HALL, NO, ORTMAN, NO,
COHEN YES, LIMMER, NO, GOODWIN,
YES, SHERAN, YES, DZIEDZIC,
YES,
>> THERE BEING AT 5-3 THE
AMENDMENT IS PASSED SENATOR
LATZ. TO THE BILL.
>> ADAM CHAIR I MOVE SENATE
FILE 458 AS AMENDED BE
RECOMMENDED PASS AND BE REFERRED
TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
>> SENATOR LATZ ALL THOSE IN
FAVOR. ROLL CALL REQUESTED
>> AND I WOULD VOTE TO 12.10
ROLLING AGAIN.
>> OK WE WILL DO THAT.
>> LATZ, YES, HALL, NO, ORTMAN,
NO, COHEN, YES, LIMMER, NO,
GOODWIN, YES, SHERAN, YES,
DZIEDZIC, YES.
>> SENATE FILE 458 AS AMENDED IS