Michael Paymar, one of Minnesota’s most zealous gun control advocates, has unveiled his gun control plan now that the numerous hearing have concluded. Not surprisingly he said an “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine ban will not be pursued at this time, instead his band of merry men will be looking at universal registration (to make a later implemented “assault weapon” ban easier):
After hours-long hearings on gun violence in both chambers this month, Rep. Michael Paymar has released a package of policy changes that focuses on expanding background checks and stepped up penalties for gun crimes, but tosses out proposed bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazine clips.
The St. Paul Democrat and chair of the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee rolled out his “Gun Violence Prevention Act” at a press conference on Thursday. It includes his proposal to expand background checks and closes the so-called gun show loophole. The bill would also increase penalties for gun crimes and illegally selling firearms.
I’m not surprised to see the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans being tabled. As I mentioned in my post about the proposed increase of taxes on alcohol, the bans were likely a “worse option” presented primarily to make the serfs more accepting of a “better option.” Now that Paymar and his goons have been so magnanimous by removing the bans from the table they expect Minnesota gun owners to comply with stricter background checks out of gratitude. Beating people into submission with fear is probably the most common tool in the statist toolbox.
Pursuing stronger background checks and prohibiting private sales is a smart move on Paymar’s behalf. It’s easy to spin those bills in a positive light and gun rights advocates have practically handed them the ability to enact stronger background checks by focusing on mental health. Because the gun rights movement has spent so much time blaming mental illness the gun control advocates can propose strong background checks, under the auspices of preventing the mentally ill from possessing firearms, and claim it’s something both sides can agree on. Instead of proposing databases and more restrictions on those who have suffered from mental illness, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and other gun rights organizations, should have been explaining how the stigma of mental illness in this country encourages people to not seek treatment and proposed working on overcoming that stigma. Now the gun control advocates have ammunition to use against us, much of which we supplied them.
On the upside any law that makes it hard to legally acquire a firearm will encourage more individuals to illegally acquire firearms. The more commerce that happens on the “black” market the less tax dollars the state can collect and the sooner it will collapse.