Dayton won’t support change to gun law

Governor Mark Dayton says he will oppose efforts to repeal the law that requires state permits and background checks for people buying handguns and semiautomatic weapons. Dayton made the comments a day after a Minnesota House committee approved a measure that would eliminate the requirement for people buying guns from federally licensed dealers. Dayton said today the background checks are needed.

“I think it’s been proven in the last couple of decades since these laws have been put into effect, state and federal, that it doesn’t prevent law abiding citizens from passing those checks as they do and bearing arms. I don’t intend to do so but I think eliminating that is unwise.”

Supporters say the state requirement is a duplication of federal law and that eliminating it would save local governments money.

  • William Pye

    I will consistently educate elected officials and the public in the terminology “to bear arms” which is stated in the 2nd Amendment.

    1st., the 2nd Amendment:

    “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – US Second Amendment to the US Constitution. On December 15, 1791

    2nd., through qualified research:

    “The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia.” _ Saul Cornell, Professor of history at Fordham University, a former Professor of history at Ohio State University and the former Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute.

    3rdly,:

    “In accordance of our nation’s heritage passed down through our Founding Fathers, the right to have arms for sport and hunting is a legal right for all citizens.” – Wikipedia

    And lastly:

    There is no provision for the citizenry to own semi or assault weapons in the Bill of Rights.

    Prudence would have as sign behind each gun shop register with the original text of our 22nd amendment.

  • Carl from Chicago

    @William Nye:

    Saul Cornell’s “qualified research” was rejected by the US Supreme Court (he filed briefs supporting DC’s position). While you may still agree with him, the court did not. Legally speaking, Cornell’s view is wrong.

    Semi-automatic firearms are “arms” under the Second Amendment precisely because they are in common use for the lawful purpose of self-defense. That too is law as settled by the US Supreme Court.

    Finally, what do Presidential term limits have to do with this issue?

  • Solabola

    @Billy Pyehole

    If you want readers to take your comments seriously, don’t use Wikipedia as one of your sources.

  • Gleaner63

    At the time when the 2nd Ammendment was written, smoothbore weapons *were* the defacto “assault” weapons of their day.

  • Doug

    The Governor has been confused by the anti-gun press.

    Minnesota’s requirements are in fact pointless in the face of Federal checks and a needless expense to impose on MN law enforcement.