Minnesota lawmakers in the state senate have proposed a bill that would require gun owners to register their weapons under the guise of “universal background checks.” Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, a gun rights advocacy group in Minnesota summarized what the bill aims to do:
“SF 458, among other faults, would make you a criminal, punishable with up to a year in jail, if you buy or sell a pistol or cosmetically frightening rifle without doing the transfer through a licensed dealer (who will charge you $25 to make a permanent record for the federal government) or without the buyer getting a purchase permit (for which the police chief or sheriff will charge another $25).”
Once again, this wouldn’t deal with the criminal element. What criminal is going to care that the law requires that he register his weapon or that he get a background check? All this would do is give the feds a list of people in the state of Minnesota who own a firearm, and they’re using the background check to do it. Criminals would be exempt.
It’s another way of achieving their goal of citizen disarmament through the back door. It’s practically impossible to try to go door-to-door, inspecting people’s homes for guns and taking them away. They’ve got to go about it in a more gradual way, pretending to be concerned about mental illness and acting like if we knew everyone’s criminal history, we could keep guns out of the wrong hands. They frame the debate in such a way that even some conservatives think that universal background checks and mental health checks are a good idea before allowing someone to own a gun. But it’s because people have accepted these criteria for gun ownership that the government will continue to broaden the definition of mental illness and withhold 2nd Amendment rights from anyone who has even the smallest criminal record (even if the citizen was actually innocent).
They’re even trying to bar military veterans from owning guns on the basis that these veterans might not be competent enough to handle their own affairs because of certain physical or mental conditions. If Veterans Affairs decides that a particular veteran is not competent, then that vet will not be able to own a firearm. A letter from the VA to a veteran said that there would be consequences if the vet disobeyed their orders:
“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both…”
And these “determinations of incompetency” are all at the discretion of the VA.
There was a Missouri bill that was introduced last week that would ban all semi-automatic rifles and require all semi-automatic rifle owners to turn in their weapons within 60 days of the law’s effective date or else become felons. In response, a Republican proposed a bill that would make it a class D felony for any lawmaker to propose a bill that encroaches on people’s 2nd Amendment rights. Now, if we could get every state to enact something like that, we’d be in much better shape.