Pair of gun bills lead to passionate debate — but no committee vote

With the Valentine’s Day shooting at a Florida high school still fresh in the minds of many people, love was not in the air when a battle pitting personal rights against public safety returned to St. Paul.

Nothing was resolved.

With hundreds of activists from both sides of the gun debate outside a Capitol hearing room, the House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee tabled two proposals Thursday.

Sponsored by Rep. Dave Pinto (DFL-St. Paul), one calls for background checks on most firearms transfers and the other would permit people to recommend someone to be barred from firearm possession.

Rep. Dave Pinto makes a point March 1 during discussion on his two gun-related bills before the House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee. Photo by Paul Battaglia

“We have an epidemic of gun violence in this country,” said Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom. “… We need to adopt common-sense approaches to address these issues.”

“Gun reform is no longer a question of if, but a question of when, and the answer is right now,” said Eva Goldfarb, a junior at St. Louis Park High School. She spoke of classmates having dreams of school shootings and an 8-year-old girl now fearful of wearing shoes that light up because she could more easily be seen by a school shooter.

“You may think students will lose interest in this issue, but we won’t,” Goldfarb said “Not until we can learn how to better the world around us instead of learning how to lock the door and hide in the corner as quickly as possible.”

Among arguments by bill opponents include violation of the Second Amendment and lack of due process.

When making a move to table one of the bills, Rep. Mark Uglem (R-Champlin) said there are good reasons on both sides of the issue, but he’d like to see a whole, rather than piecemeal, approach. (WATCH)

“There are other bills making their way through the system here in the House and the Senate this session,” he said. “It’s prudent upon this body that we look at all the bills that are coming through before we make a decision.”

Background checks

Pinto said an estimated that 10 to 15 percent of firearm sales are done sans a background check.

HF1669 would require a buyer background check for each transfer of a firearm in the state, including those among private parties. Some exceptions are provided for, such as an exchange between immediate family members or a temporary transfer if it “is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”

According to the bill, if neither party is a federally licensed dealer, both “shall appear jointly before a federally licensed firearms dealer with the firearm and request that the federally licensed firearms dealer conduct a background check on the transferee and facilitate the transfer.”

It was tabled on a 9-7 vote with Rep. Keith Franke (R-St. Paul Park) joining DFLers to vote no.

Chaska Police Chief Scott Knight said the state police chief’s association supports the bill.

He said a system would help prohibit people who cannot otherwise legally procure a firearm from getting one. Knight said a person can now get one online, at a garage sale or by answering a newspaper ad, without the seller knowing the buyer would be prohibited from firearm ownership if a check occurred.

“People generally support the idea of background checks, but when you talk about the restrictions on transfers, the restrictions on loans, loaning somebody a firearm to go hunting for the weekend, that’s when they really start to fall off, once you actually address the specific issues,” said Rob Doar, political director of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

Rob Doar, political director of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, speaks March 1 against one of the gun-related bills before the House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee. Photo by Paul Battaglia

Daniel Ward is vice president and membership director of the African American Heritage Gun Club.

“If I wanted to sell a gun to a fellow club member who I’ve known, trusted, gone to the range with, shot with, I’m not concerned that person’s going to go out and commit a crime,” he said. “… They’re a law-abiding citizen; they’ve already submitted to a background check, so why am I being required to do it again just to sell a gun to one of my friends who I go shoot with. That makes no sense to me.”

The bill is co-sponsored by 30 DFL members and zero Republicans.

“If we reduce the ability of individuals who shouldn’t have guns to get guns, it will then reduce the amount of people that we are seeing shot and killed by guns every day,” said Rep. Raymond Dehn (DFL-Mpls), adding the bill would still allow people to get weapons that have predominantly been used in mass shootings, such as an AR-15.

A companion, SF1261, sponsored by Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park), awaits action by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.

Possession protective orders

Preventing potential trouble is the focus of Pinto’s other bill that was tabled on a 10-6 party-line vote, which should have come as no surprise as all 34 co-sponsors are DFLers.

WATCH: Move to lay the bill on the table

HF1605 would permit law enforcement and family members to petition a court to prohibit someone from possessing a firearm for between six months and two years if they pose a “significant danger” to themselves or others. Pinto said five states allow something similar.

A “preponderance of evidence” would be needed to get a court order, and a 14-day emergency issuance of a gun violence protective order is provided in the bill.

“We in law enforcement find ourselves close to many situations where the law falls short of protecting people from themselves or creating better safety nets for those around them,” said Ramsey County Sheriff Jack Serier. “Behaviors we see from some people often leave us concerned and lacking the tools to intervene as we see a situation build to what, at times, becomes a tragic ending.”

Sarah Cade, team leader with the Gun Owners Caucus, speaks against a “gun violence protective order” bill sponsored by Rep. Dave Pinto, right, at a March 1 meeting of the House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee. Photo by Paul Battaglia

Doar called the idea “noble,” but he and other bill opponents expressed due process concerns because an accused person must justify to a court they are fit to have a firearm.

“An individual’s constitutional rights would be violated not because of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not even clear and convincing evidence, but mere preponderance of the evidence,” he said. “Preponderance of evidence is only one person’s side of the story. They can have their property and their gun rights and their right to self-defense taken away from them. The potential for abuse of this is egregious.”

“This bill makes it easy to take something away and hard to get it back,” added Joe Olson, president of Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.

Under a provision of the bill, a petitioner who files false information would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Latz also sponsors the Senate companion, SF1262. It, too, awaits action by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.