Re-posted from NRA-ILA They encourage the sharing of this information.
NRA Members Send 3,736 Letters to Lawmakers in Support of Gun Rights
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Fairfax, Va. – Minnesota members and supporters of the National Rifle Association in recent days have sent 3,736 email letters to members of the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee in support of gun rights. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard public testimony today on Senate File 2493, a bill that would criminalize common place practices of law-abiding gun owners, and Senate File 2980, a bill that could leave victims of domestic violence unable to defend themselves. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pushing these bills in Minnesota as part of the Obama-Bloomberg gun control agenda.
“These bills are part of the Obama-Bloomberg gun control agenda and offer up a false sense of safety while infringing upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners and those who wish to lawfully purchase a firearm,” Catherine Mortensen, NRA Spokesperson. “They will do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms and will only put an unnecessary burden upon law-abiding citizens.”
Senate File 2493 would dramatically expand background checks to all sales and transfers of firearms in the state of Minnesota, with very limited and narrow exceptions. This bill would criminalize common place practices of law-abiding citizens who hunt, engage in recreational shooting sports, and exercise their Second Amendment for self-defense.
Background information on SF 2493
- According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 77% of criminals obtain guns through theft, on the black market, from drug dealers and other illicit sources. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and are not going to subject themselves to a background check to acquire a firearm. Clearly, this proposal will do nothing to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining firearms.
- Examples of how common place practices of law-abiding gun owners would be criminalized under SF 2493:
- A hunter who takes a close friend, neighbor, or even a cousin, hunting could face criminal charges if he shares his firearm with his friend depending on whether hunting is legal in all places where the friend possesses the firearm. This means that if the friend or relative possesses the firearm while crossing a road or other area where hunting isn’t legal, the hunter could be prosecuted because the friend’s possession would no longer fit within the narrow language of the provided exception.
- A member of the military could face criminal charges for having a friend store his firearms while he or she is deployed overseas.
- A person who is a victim of a stalker or domestic violence, but cannot afford to purchase a firearm for self-defense, would not be able to borrow a firearm from a friend, until the very moment her attacker is standing over her with a deadly weapon.
Senate File 2980 would allow a family or household member or guardian to petition the court to prohibit an individual from possessing firearms. This petition strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights and would be issued by a judge based solely on a single sworn statement of an accuser before the accused can appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations.
Background information on SF 2980
- If signed into law, it would clearly go against a person’s constitutional right to tell their side of the story to a judge before stripping them of the Second Amendment rights.
- If signed into law, it would be open to abuse by estranged domestic partners who might seek to take away their partner’s rights out of revenge or spite.
- It could leave a victim of domestic violence unable to defend themselves if stripped of their ability to protect themselves.
- A tragic case in New Jersey illustrates the folly of gun control laws. Thirty-nine year old Carol Bowne of Berlin, New Jersey was brutally stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend. As senseless as this tragedy is, it is even more tragic knowing that Bowne had applied for a firearms permit in an effort to defend herself. Not days, not weeks, but MONTHS prior to her death. Bowne knew the restraining order she was granted on her ex-boyfriend, was only a piece of paper and would not protect her if he chose not to abide by it, which was the case on the night of her untimely death. But New Jersey’s onerous gun control laws and bureaucratic ineptitude prevented Carol Bowne from being able to defend herself that day. This tragedy also illustrates the point that if you take away guns from domestic abusers, they will find other weapons, or acquire a firearm illegally.
Video of Carol Bowne’s story: www.nranews.com/...
The point of this article is to point out that most of the ANTI gun push is actually products of a hand-full of people or organizations and hiding behind or funding other organizations to give the false impression, that most people want this garbage or are being manipulated into thinking its good. By creating a (fake echo chamber to appear that millions of people want this, or they want this, not knowing it means something else in reality.) When In reality its only a small group of people pushing it. In this case it is Bloomberg the DEM billionaire, That is funding and pushing the “universal background check” Which is NOT the same as a “background check” which is ALREADY in place.
“Universal background check” is “NOT a universal background check” is actually unconstitutional, because it needs certain things to exist to be enforceable. that are ILLEGAL for the federal government/ state governments to do, because of both Laws and the constitutions bill of rights forbids certain things. Like centralized, up to date registries, on both owners and their firearms. « Illegal
Only way for universal background checks to work, is it has to have a FULL up to date centralized registry(illegal by the way due to federal law from 1989? there about). They have to know every single owner and what guns they have and who the firearms transfer too. Then there is the problem of searches, to ensure people are obeying. Which will be needed, if it was to ever truly work, as worded in the bills. But ask yourself how do they do the searches legally without violating the constitution bill of rights illegal search and seizure? They can’t. So the law is unenforceable in regards to private transfers, in home, by those who choose not to report. Since you need probable cause to do the search in the first place. Then the most important question of all does it actually reduce violent crime to do such background checks.
Quote”As I said at the beginning, there are strong arguments in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are not lawfully allowed to possess them. But the evidence just doesn’t exist that such laws would be effective at reducing murder rates.”
source www.americas1stfreedom.org/...
Then there is the matter of whether such laws have any effect of reducing or stopping violent crimes, the answer is irrevocably NO.
There is no point wasting effort on laws that do not work, to actually stop violent offenses. “Preventive laws”(universal background check)(forced gun safe in homes) DO NOT work.
Only laws that deal with people, once they commit their first offense, and how we deal with them after, is the only way to reduce violent crimes. Simple fact: you restrict or remove, those prone to violence, directly translates, to real world reduction of violent offenses, that person will commit in future. You release those prone to violent offenses, into the public directly translates to violence increases in society.
Notice what I just said? there is NO mention of guns??? It is people who are responsible for the violent acts.
www.americas1stfreedom.org/... This is worth reading because the source information is the unbiased FBI criminal activities related data collection. Article is about (Do “Universal” Background Checks Reduce Murder Rates?”) It also explains the difficulties of interpreting the information, which shows it was a “more unbiased” than some other studies of the issue.
None of this is arbitrary or abstract. It is real in how it would impact law abiding citizens and have little to no effect on law breakers. in regards to the so “called gun safety laws” to which the “universal background checks” and “lock box requirements” “One person, word of mouth hearsay law”. All of them are “preventative laws” which translate to “feel good laws” that have no real impact on violent crime.
Thus why we object so strongly to these Kind of laws being proposed. We want laws that “actually STOP” violent crimes. Lock up offenders, who commit acts of violence with a firearms illegally or criminally. Set the time for lock up based on severity of the violation. “Mass murders” get execution every time(its a mercy vs the alternatives), there is no way to rehabilitate someone like that. And It is too expensive to imprison them, for their entire lives, in a super max. And its cruel and unusual punishment to confine them to solitary confinement the rest of their lives.
NRA does support real gun laws en.wikipedia.org/…
The NRA does support gun laws, so long as it stops the illegal use of firearms . But does not support the parts of laws that infringe on people, that committed no crimes, nor proven they were a danger. Or laws that have had no effect in the past, on violence and or has increased in violence following the passage of gun laws. Example oppose “assault weapon ban” because a decade or more evidence from FBI and ATF proves it had no impact, on crime rates what so ever. So there is no realistic point of the ban.
That in itself demonstrates they DO NOT want to arm criminals. its just the opposite, they want to take guns away from those who would use them illegally. WITHOUT infringing on the rights of those who use them legally and morally.
How is that evil? or wrong?
Gun laws are NOT suppose to criminalize lawful activity, it suppose to stop violent offenders by removing them from society. If it does the first but not the second Absolutely not. If it does both NO because it will be abused later. If its just the last, then YES because the law will actually work and do as intended.