Despite little visible movement, new gun legislation expanding background checks for gun sales and establishing gun violence restraining orders may have life at the Minnesota Capitol.
On Wednesday, Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt said he’s hopeful common ground can still be reached. And on Thursday, Democrats will make a push on the Senate floor for two recently revised plans to expand background checks and allow police to petition courts to temporarily seize guns from someone deemed to be a danger.
No one is saying it’s likely anything will be approved. But the developments are still a big deal because the Senate is narrowly split, election-year politics are in play, guns are such a major issue and before now, nothing of substance has happened in the Legislature.
Despite efforts by mainly Democrats to push a wide swath of gun-control legislation in the aftermath of a mass shooting at a high school in Florida, neither the House or Senate has debated or voted on a gun-control bill — a fact that prompted Rep. Erin Maye Quade to stage a 24-hour sit-in on the house floor that concluded Wednesday.
POLITICS AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
The backdrop of it all are the politics and public opinions over guns.
All state House members are up for re-election in November, along with every congressional seat and all statewide offices. While Republicans currently hold a solid majority in the state House, majorities have swung in past elections, and individual members from suburban swing districts are mindful of any issue that could tip the balance.
On Tuesday, the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune released results of a poll showing 90 percent of Minnesotans favor background checks for all gun sales. Some 52 percent of those surveyed live in a home where someone owns a gun, according to the poll. The overwhelming support held not just in the Twin Cities, but also in suburban and rural areas where Second Amendment support is especially strong.
Here are Wednesday’s developments:
KURT DAUDT ‘HOPEFUL’
When asked specifically about expanding background checks, Daudt, R-Crown, responded that “behind-the-scenes” conversations between lawmakers are happening “to reduce putting guns in the hands of potentially dangerous criminals. I know we all share that goal. … I hope those conversations can be fruitful and we can find some legislation that can get support of the Legislature.”
(Daudt later, Wednesday night, said his response was not about background checks, saying, in part, in a Facebook comment: “Those quotes were about finding common ground on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but common ground and having conversations does not mean I’m hoping for restrictions on guns. It simply means people should be talking to each other.” Listen to Daudt’s original comments in the following video. The background checks question is at 2:47.)
Democrats responded, essentially, by saying talk is cheap.
“We’ll see which bills get passed at the end of session,” said Minority Leader Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park. “With all due respect, as a politician it’s pretty easy to deliver lip service and not results. So we’ll just have to see. The work will stand for itself.”
Daudt was vague about who specifically was having said conversations and what specifically were points of common ground. He said he had been involved in some, and he was aware of others. Hortman said she hadn’t been part of any, and Rep. Dave Pinto, DFL-St. Paul, who has been leading Democrats’ gun-control efforts, said he hadn’t been told by any Republican that they were close to agreement.
SENATE VOTE TOO CLOSE TO CALL
The big showdown on gun control could come Thursday in the Senate, which is expected to consider one massive bill with spending and policies ranging from education to public safety.
The groundwork was laid Wednesday when Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, announced two amendments to that massive bill: one for expanded background checks and the other for so-called “red flag” restraining orders. In various forms, Latz has been pushing for both measures for years, and they’ve gone nowhere.
However, the calculus changed Wednesday when Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, announced he supports both plans and is urging colleagues to do the same. Beyond his influence as minority leader, Bakk hails from the Iron Range and holds sway with rural Democrats who have historically been less enthusiastic about — or even opposed to — gun-control measures backed by metro liberals.
Latz said he believed he was close to — and might already have — unanimous support from Democrats. That matters in the Senate because Republicans hold a mere 34-33 majority — and earlier this year, each plan had garnered at least one Republican supporter. However, Latz said he had received no assurances of any Republican votes Thursday.
It’s also possible Democrats’ efforts could be quashed on a technicality.
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, said the following of Latz’s amendments Wednesday: “I don’t know that they would be germane to what is in that bill.” That’s a reference to a Senate rule that has been used by both parties in the past to avoid floor debates.
Gazelka continued: “But I want to keep having conversations … to see if there’s places that we all can find some common ground.”
One more wrinkle: That one-vote Republican majority includes Senate President Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville. Her vote could be disputed because she’s also the state’s lieutenant governor. Fischbach is the subject of a lawsuit alleging that she’s violating the state constitution by holding both positions. She ascended to the lieutenant governorship after Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, appointed his lieutenant governor, Tina Smith, to the U.S. Senate to replace Al Franken.
Latz emphasized that his two proposals are different from what he had previously proposed — in attempts to allay concerns of critics.
Here’s a breakdown:
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PISTOLS AND ‘ASSAULT’ WEAPONS
Under Latz’s plan for background checks, all private gun sales in the state involving a pistol or “semiautomatic military-style assault weapon” would be subject to a background check of the buyer. Traditional hunting shotguns and bolt-action rifles would not be covered. There are further exceptions for relatives, hunting partners and other transfers, but in essence, the plan would close the so-called “gun-show loophole” that allows someone to avoid a background check by buying a gun from a non-licensed gun dealer. Under current state law, you have to undergo a background check to buy a gun from a gun store or other licensed dealer.
Among the changes Latz has made:
- The process would use the existing system for obtaining a permit to carry a handgun. A person would obtain a permit to purchase that would be valid for five years and subject to an annual background check, same as the handgun-carry permit process.
- Gun sales must be recorded and paper copies must be kept, but that information is not available to any government official without a court order specific to that firearm, in connection with a criminal investigation. “This avoids the specter of a registry,” Latz said.
‘RED FLAG’ RESTRAINING ORDER
The idea behind “extreme risk protection orders,” also known as “red flag” orders, is to find a way to temporarily take guns away from someone who poses “a significant danger of bodily injury to self or to other persons by possessing a firearm,” according to the language of Latz’s plan. Latz said examples could range from a suicidal person to someone having a violent mental health episode.
Unlike previous proposals, the new plan only allows for law enforcement to petition a judge for the removal of firearms. Previous versions allowed family members or others to petition courts directly, drawing criticism from not only gun-rights groups but also civil liberties advocates like the ACLU.
Falsely attempting to persuade the police to seek such an order would be a criminal offense. If a judge can’t determine by a preponderance of the evidence that there’s an immediate threat, the gun or guns remain and the petition proceeds to a court hearing — essentially a mini-trial before a judge where the gun owner targeted could argue his or her side. Latz said he added numerous such procedures to the plan in an attempt to “address due-process concerns.”