The March 26 letter, "Expand gun-sale background checks," seemed an attempt to deliberately mislead. The letter was about House File 8 and Senate File 434, suggesting the bills were about expanding background checks for gun sales. They are not. I see them as gun-registration bills. Had the letter disclosed that, it would have been more transparent.

The anti-gun DFL has chosen to use the term "background checks" instead of "gun registration" because it polls better with the population. If DFlers used the more apt term "gun registration," polling most likely would be against the measure.

An examination of the proposed bills shows a mandatory record of sales be maintained by sellers, even friends or neighbors or those selling guns through an ad in the paper or shopper or on a bulletin board at work. This record must contain the name, address of the seller, the name and address of the buyer, the brand of firearm, its caliber, and, most importantly, the gun's serial number. Government officials would be able to track the gun to the buyer then, including in the event they wished to confiscate it - even through the misnamed "red flag" bill (actually a confiscation bill) being offered as a companion to the registration bill.

I enjoy my un-infringed Second Amendment right to purchase firearms from ads, via word of mouth, at gun shows, and through other means that don't require them to be registered with the government. There is no legitimate reason to register them, as normal, law-abiding people would agree.

I appreciate the right of letter writers to express their opinions under the First Amendment. I hope they appreciate and respect my right to personal, private gun ownership under the Second Amendment.

I urge readers to encourage their senators to oppose gun-registration and gun-confiscation bills in Minnesota.

Jimmy Saranpaa

Orr