The Outdoors

By Scott Rall, Outdoors Columnist

This column is being written solely to generate discussion surrounding some proposed gun legislation being floated around the Minnesota State Capitol these days. I repeat, this is to create discussion and not explode the virtues one way or the other of these proposed legislations.

Now I am a gun guy and regularly spend time on the range participating in all kinds of recreational shooting from busting clay targets with a shotgun to listening to the round of a 6.5 Creedmoor as it contacts a steel plate at 880 yards. I find both of these pastimes to be very enjoyable.

Last session Minnesota passed some laws in reference to guns. They made all transfers of guns of certain specifications to include a background check. Shotguns and most long guns were exempted from these new rules.

The law was designed to track the transfers of handguns and a broad category of rifles called black guns. Black guns are a reference to the AR-15 style rifle. In order to sell or gift a firearm in these categories the gifter/seller would need to utilize one of several avenues available to ensure the recipient was eligible to own said firearm. This transfer rule would even include lending a gun to a visiting family member who is home over Thanksgiving and wants to go hunting but did not travel home with their gun.

The other law passed last session was what is referred to as a red flag law.  If you feel like there is a person who is exhibiting behavior that could endanger themselves or others, you use this law to have law enforcement confiscate their guns until a determination is made if they are a threat.

The laws being considered this year are more invasive. It actually prohibits the ownership of black guns. There is language included to buy back all of the black guns in the state. Magazine capacity regulations are included to make ownership of those higher-capacity magazines illegal as well. Other proposals do not outright ban black guns but require the owner to register them with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. As a gun owner, and a pretty strong advocate for gun ownership rights, I can’t think of one single gun owner who would want the government to have a list of the guns they own and where they are kept. I can think of many other assets people own besides guns that they would not want the government to know exactly how much and where those assets might be located.

There are federal laws that prohibit gun ownership registries. It would make sense to me that these laws proposed by Minnesota would fly in the face of those. Minnesota has a law that sets the state as a decider on most gun laws and prohibits cities and counties from enacting their own laws that differ from state statutes. Can you imagine how many different laws would be in place if this preemption statute was repealed? Repealing it is being proposed in some of the bills being floated around today.

As a concealed permit holder, I work relentlessly to ensure that when I drive from one state to another, that I know what is required. I can’t imagine trying to unwind 100 different statutes if cities and counties could do their own thing.

The big gun debate is widely divided and the separation is mostly along population numbers. Big cities think gun restrictions are long overdue and rural areas believe differently for the most part.

I for one think that every gun law considered should result in a reduction in the number of guns in the hands of criminals. People who are not mentally fit to own a gun should not own one either. The problem with gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will comply but criminals will not.

The shooting in Burnsville was done with a gun purchased by a straw buyer.  This is a person who purchases a gun solely for the purpose of selling it or giving it to another person who might not be eligible to purchase one themselves. Straw purchases are already illegal.

Do you make straw purchases doubly illegal? I think a law that states if you buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from having one you can be charged with the same crime as they committed with the straw purchased gun. That might make a straw buyer think twice.

In the end, you can come down on either side of these proposals, but you do need to at least stay engaged. There will be evil people forever. We need to get better control over them and make sure we don’t run over law-abiding gun owners in the process. These laws are being considered for black guns, but the vast majority of crimes are committed with a handgun. I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if measurable reduction in crime is the ultimate end game.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you have any questions, reach out to me at scottarall@gmail.com.