Capitol Retort: Dumb' argument, Cohen dishes, punch line.

Byline: Kevin Featherly

Editor's note: Welcome to Capitol Retort, our weekly review of issues in state and national news, with a rotating cast of legal and political people in the know. Answers are edited for length and clarity. Any instances of agreement are accidental.

Question 1: One argument against new private-transfer gun background checks is that criminals won't obey the law and only law-abiding citizens would be affected. Rep. John Lesch called that argument "dumb," because the same could be said about every criminal statute on the books. Whose position is more compelling?

Melisa Franzen, DFL state senator, attorney: Lesch's: He's an attorney, I'm an attorney. I'm going to go with the attorney. [Laughs.]

Dennis Smith, former GOP House member, attorney: Representative Lesch's position is more compelling, in the sense that it is accurate. We can't presume someone is not going to honor a law that is passed, whether it is that particular provision or something else. In regards to universal background checks, I think our laws now are solid and we don't need any more laws in that area. But in regards to not passing a law regardless of the content by saying someone is not going to follow it is not the most sound argument.

Abou Amara, DFL activist, juris doctoral candidate: Well, it's obvious that that logic makes very little sense. If you apply it to a variety of other areas, it leads you to the conclusion that Representative Lesch got to. By definition, laws are meant to be enforced and, obviously, if these laws were to be implemented we'd have to come up with a scheme that would make them effective. But the idea that we can just say criminals don't pay attention to laws, therefore we shouldn't have this law, is antithetical to our very idea of a nation of laws and the rules.

Pat Garofalo, GOP House member: The only way to regulate private transactions is to create a statewide government database tracking who owns what guns, and I'm fiercely opposed to that. It's unenforceable without a massive intrusion by government. And this is not a black-helicopter conspiracy theory. The Democratic Party nominees for president for the last 20 years have believed that an individual only has a right to own a firearm with regards to their membership in a militia. So when we say the Democrats are coming after our guns, there's a reasonable basis in fact.

Question 2: Michael Cohen, the president's former attorney and fixer, testified for six hours before...