A Former Prosecutor Explains The Two Gun Control Measures Before The Legislature

By Thomas Weyandt, Minnesota Reformer:

I spent the last 10 of my 34 years with the St. Paul City Attorney’s Office as a prosecutor, and I worked on hundreds of gun crime cases. I wrote a manual on how to deal with gun crime, taught classes and lectured about it.

After I retired, I volunteered to write proposals to change Minnesota statutes in an attempt to address gun crime. Among them: two bills currently under consideration at the Legislature.

One of the bills (HF14/SF1116) would place additional restrictions on the private sales of firearms.

The perceived problem is often referred to as the “gun show loophole.”

Current law requires buyers to undergo background checks before a purchase can be made from a licensed firearms dealer. This requirement has been in place for decades and has passed numerous challenges. The law does not currently require a background check if the seller is not a licensed firearms dealer.

Opponents argue that the proposal to require a background check on a private sale is a violation of a right provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

But why would the status of the seller suddenly become a violation of rights?

The inconvenience of having to undergo a criminal history check, in my view, is inconsequential if the proposal prevents a single fatality.

Another often-cited reason for opposition to closing the loophole is that it makes it hard to lend someone a gun for hunting or to pass down a firearm to another generation. The proposals resolve these problems, though, so there really is no basis for this objection.

The second proposal being considered by lawmakers (HF15/SF1117) would allow police and family members to petition a court for an order requiring a person to surrender all firearms. The stated objection to such “red flag laws” is they would allow for a seizure of firearms without due process.

But the petition for an order has to be offered under oath, and it is perjury to lie on an application. The process involves serving the person with the petition, and then there is an opportunity for a hearing before a judge. That’s due process.

The proposal is identical to the process in place for an Order for Protection, or OFP. That law has been in place for many years and is most often used to require that a person stay away from someone who is afraid of being harmed by them.

The red-flag proposal has the potential for reducing domestic-related homicides. Even more compelling is that it is the only proposal I have seen that might stop someone planning a mass shooting. Investigations into mass shootings have revealed shooters writing about doing it or even telling others of their plans.

A red-flag law would provide a way for police to react.

Do we want them seizing guns following a due process hearing, or seizing guns after someone has already used them to terrorize yet another community?

That’s what lawmakers should be asking themselves.

The Minnesota Reformer is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to keeping Minnesotans informed and unearthing stories other outlets can’t or won’t tell..