Since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, it seems that leftists across the United States have been competing to see who could pass the most oppressive gun control measures. Though many states have proposed extremely restrictive measures for limiting the gun rights of law-abiding residents, it seems that Minnesota may hold the record.
To say that HF 3022 in Minnesota is an ‘anti-Second Amendment’ piece of legislation is an understatement. If the bill, HF 3022, is passed in the state of Minnesota, it would make Minnesota’s firearm regulations as strict, and in some ways MORE strict, than those in California. It would allow the state to arbitrarily strip all Second Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens, and impose an oppressive burden on gun owners in the state of Minnesota.
The entire text of the bill is around 25 pages long, and it includes a number of measures that gun-control proponents love. It also seems like a bill that isn’t interested in preventing gun crime, but rather harassing gun owners for enjoying a constitutional right that leftists hate.
The first portion to deal with firearms outright prohibits silencers in the state of Minnesota. Silencers are almost NEVER used in crime, nor do they actually ‘silence’ a firearm, but liberals don’t like the idea of reducing a gunshot from ~182 decibels to ~152, apparently.
The second portion of the bill would allow the state of Minnesota and its agents to suspend the constitutional right of gun ownership, if someone owes more than three months’ worth of child support. Losing a job or simply having a vindictive ex would be enough to bar a law-abiding citizen from owning firearms. The bill would also allow for stripping gun rights based on anonymous reports, demanding that the citizen shoulder the responsibility of disproving a claim made against them.
Next, HF 3022 bans bump-fire stocks and similar devices that “approximate” the rate of fire of a “machine gun.”
Continuing on, HF 3022 redefines “Semiautomatic military-style” rifles, and renames them as “assault weapons,” utilizing loaded language meant to give a false impression of the capabilities of such common rifles.
Under the new definition, a rifle is an ‘assault weapon’ if it is fed by a detachable magazine and has: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, “any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand,” or if it has a barrel shroud.
The new law would also define pistols as ‘assault weapons’ if they accept a detachable magazine (so any modern pistol) and also have: any grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand, a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock, a barrel shroud, or the ability to accept a pistol somewhere other than the pistol grip.
Shotguns don’t escape regulation as ‘assault weapons,’ either. If a semiautomatic has any of the following, it is deemed an ‘assault weapon’: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand, a folding or telescoping stock, capacity of more than seven rounds, the ability to accept a box magazine of any size, or a revolving cylinder.
The proposed law would add a definition for ‘large-capacity magazine,’ defining many STANDARD-capacity magazines as such. Essentially, any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds is covered, unless the magazine is a .22 caliber tube or a tube magazine on a lever-action weapon.
Further down the measure, it states that there will no longer be any transfer of firearms of any kind that are not performed by licensed dealers. The law also says that if the person the firearm is being transferred to is not able to receive it, the FFL will do a background check on the people who sent the weapon for transfer. If they don’t pass, the FFL must turn the firearm over to police within 24 hours.
The dealer must also hold the weapon for FIVE DAYS before transferring it, even if transferring it to someone with no criminal history.
For every firearm transfer, the FFL will have to prepare a record of the transfer. Within five days of the transfer, a copy of the record will have to be provided to the local sheriff, including information such as the name and address of both transferor and transferee, telephone number of the transferee, and a description of the firearm including its serial number.
Surely, that doesn’t sound like a de facto gun registry. Surely.
Next, the law outright bans civilian ownership of ‘assault weapons,’ as previously defined. Government agencies can own them for their ‘duties,’ but no one else can.
Those who currently own them can continue to own them, but they cannot be transferred within the state of Minnesota. ‘Assault weapon’ owners who want to keep their firearms will also need to submit to a background check by local police or their local sheriff, register the weapon with local law enforcement, and store the weapon in whatever way the law enforcement agency demands.
If that doesn’t seem oppressive enough, it gets better. Owners must renew the ‘assault weapon’s’ registration annually and submit to a new background check each time. They must also allow the police to inspect the weapon’s storage at will, without any warrant or probable cause.
Once registered, ‘assault weapons’ may not be sold at all. They can only be transferred to law enforcement for destruction.
Anyone who receives an ‘assault weapon’ from a deceased relative must, within 120 days, turn it over for destruction or render it permanently inoperable.
The state will now require anyone who wishes to buy a firearm to get a permit to buy and possess the firearm. All firearms must be registered locally, and registration must be renewed annually.
Purchasing ammunition will require a permit, and there will be a record of any such purchase, which police must be allowed to review for at least five years at their whim, and again, without probable cause or a warrant.
Finally, to add insult to injury, the state of Minnesota will make all firearm ownership data public, and will track the number of firearms a person owns, their name, and their address. That doesn’t sound designed to target firearm owners in any way, certainly.
Of course, none of this will have any impact on firearm crimes in the state of Minnesota. Criminals don’t buy their firearms legally, and they don’t register them. They also often steal ammunition.
These laws seem, in part, similar to British firearm laws, which require that gun owners must always be open to random harassment/inspection by the agents of the government.
By proposing this law in the first place, the democrats in Minnesota have made one thing abundantly clear: the left is no friend to firearm owners of any sort, and will use any excuse to push gun control.
However, gun owners in the state of Minnesota can take heart that this bill is not likely to go far. Of the eight authors originally listed on the bill, four have demanded their names be stricken from the bill as it became more and more obviously anti-Second Amendment in design and intent.
Further, vast swaths of the law are outright unconstitutional, and amount to violations of the fourth amendment right to due process and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Still, it is shocking to see what Minnesota politicians think an acceptable ‘gun control’ scheme looks like.