Conceal and carry

  • hooks
    Crystal, Mn.
    Posts: 1268
    #1244573

    Minnesota’s conceal and carry gun law was declared unconstitutional today by a Ramsey County District judge.

    Ruling in a lawsuit brought by several churches, Judge John Finley wrote in his decision that it was unconstitutional for the 2002 Legislature to bundle the conceal and carry gun language with a “totally unrelated bill relating to the Department of Natural Resources.”

    He said the state Constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject.

    Minneapolis attorney David Lillehaug, who represented Adath Jeshurun Congregation in challenging the gun law, said Finley ruled that passage of Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2002, known as Senate File 842, was “contrary to Minnesota’s tradition of open government.”

    Finley issued his order about 11 a.m. and was unavailable for comment on the immediate effects of the ruling. Under the law, citizens who obtain a permit are allowed to carry a concealed gun.

    Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch said he will appeal Finley’s ruling. Hatch said he was still researching the opinion, but believes that conceal and carry permits obtained since the law was passed are still valid.

    He said the whole issue of laws embracing more than one subject has been in debate for the past 10 years.

    Hatch also said he is not aware of any ill effects from the gun law.

    Jeremiah Shaver
    La Crosse, WI
    Posts: 4941
    #312428

    There are very few states left in the union that don’t allow this, I hope they finally come around.

    If MN gets to go through, hopefully WI would soon follow.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #312434

    Quote:


    Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch said he will appeal Finley’s ruling. Hatch said he was still researching the opinion, but believes that conceal and carry permits obtained since the law was passed are still valid.


    Hatch will have the appeal filed by the end of the day today. No worry here. Permits are still valid…..

    -J.

    stevew
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts: 412
    #312445

    Remember this everytime you vote . Judicial activists know what’s best for you…. Yeah, right!

    Jason_N
    St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
    Posts: 272
    #312456

    I have yet to get mine. Can anyone here who has one recommend a good place for the mantitory training. Sounds like I better get going on it.

    James Holst
    Keymaster
    SE Minnesota
    Posts: 18926
    #312458

    Correct me if I’m wrong here Jon but the MN Supreme court ruled aginst the practice of bundling laws together under a single bill and didn’t comment on the constitutionality of the conceal and carry law itself. If this is the case, I can see the issue here. This type of ruling is in place to keep sneaky politicans from throwing unpopular riders on popular bills in hopes of forcing them through.

    Quote:


    Quote:


    Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch said he will appeal Finley’s ruling. Hatch said he was still researching the opinion, but believes that conceal and carry permits obtained since the law was passed are still valid.


    Hatch will have the appeal filed by the end of the day today. No worry here. Permits are still valid…..

    -J.


    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #312461

    True James,

    However nearly every single bill passed into law in the last 10 years has been ammended or “Bundled” with other legislation. Just the way things are done here at the state level and at the Federal level.

    They can’t toss out every law passed in the last ten years!!

    -J.

    James Holst
    Keymaster
    SE Minnesota
    Posts: 18926
    #312462

    No they most certainly cannot. Was this item presented to the surpeme court immediately after the conceal and carry bill was first passed or was this or more recent thing? Seems odd that this would come to a head now after so much time has past. Although we all know the courts can be very slow so maybe it just took this long to get a rulling.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #312467

    This was not a supreme court ruling. It was a district court ruling. It stemmed from a lawsuit by a church group that litigated it was unconstitutional for a state law to require them to post “No Guns Allowed” signs. They either did not want to post signs at all or use their own wording. The judge agreed to look at this case and the judge himself found this somewhat obscure section of the constitution and ruled on it. (At least that’s how I understand it right now….and I aint now lawyer!)

    hooks
    Crystal, Mn.
    Posts: 1268
    #312488

    Isn’t that called “Pork Barreling”?
    I think thats what it’s refered to. This practice has been going on to long and if it sticks here it could unravel alot of things passed in prior years. The sad thing is this same crap has stopped alot of bills from getting passed in years gone by. It was a dirty way of getting something to fail, tack on something legislators will vote against.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #312489

    Here is an AP wire story with a little more background…..

    By ASHLEY H. GRANT
    Associated Press Writer

    ST. PAUL (AP) – Minnesota’s handgun permitting law was declared unconstitutional Tuesday by a Ramsey County District judge in a lawsuit brought by several churches and other groups.

    Judge John Finley said the Legislature violated the state constitution last year by attaching the so-called conceal and carry bill with a “totally unrelated bill relating to the Department of Natural Resources.”

    The state constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject.

    “Our state has prided itself in its openness in all areas of government. … This basic Minnesota value is totally frustrated when the Legislature itself clearly violates the underpinnings of such a basic conscience-guided law and constitutional provision,” Finley wrote in his opinion.

    Lawyers on both sides of the issue were scrambling Tuesday to determine the immediate impact of the ruling.

    “That’s a real good question that I don’t think anyone knows at the moment,” said Joe Olson, a Hamline University Law School professor who is president of a group called Concealed Carry Reform Now.

    Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch said he would appeal Finley’s ruling. Although he was still researching the opinion, Hatch believes permits obtained since the law was passed are still valid.

    More than 22,000 Minnesotans have received handgun permits since the law was changed just over a year ago. That’s about twice as many permits as were issued the previous year, but well short of projections that as many as 90,000 permits would be issued in the first three years of the new law.

    The old law gave sheriffs and police chiefs broad discretion to deny permits. The new law guarantees a permit to most adults who receive required training, pay an application fee and pass a background check.

    Private building owners immediately began posting signs at public entrances banning handguns. But another provision of the law prevented private establishments from banning firearms in parking lots.

    The church leaders filed their lawsuit a week before the law went into effect on May 28, arguing that it often uses its parking lot and leased buildings for worship services and that the church should be allowed to prohibit guns on its property.

    Other congregations from different denominations across the region, as well as nonprofits and the city of Minneapolis joined the lawsuit.

    Filed last fall in Ramsey County District Court, the lawsuit also contended the law infringed on property rights of the church groups and the city by allowing people with guns to intrude without permission and without compensation on the property owners.

    And the church groups say the law violates their guarantees of religious freedom.

    Olson said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling, but expected the state Court of Appeals might issue a stay in the case, meaning the new law would stay in place while the ruling is appealed.

    “This case was destined for the Minnesota Supreme Court from the beginning,” Olson said. “The faster it gets there, the better.”

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #312493

    Derived from comment sent to me in the last hour that I totally agree with!

    ========================================================

    Once again an activist judicial system is able to dictate laws to the citizens of this state. While it took the entire house, senate, and the Governor to pass this law based upon their constituents desires, it only took 1 judge to change it.

    I believe the ruling is unlikely to stand. If the law is overturned, that simply returns us to the old law. Permit holders could then legally carry in schools. There would be no penalty for carrying under the influence. There would be no provisions for allowing property owners to post no-guns signs. I believe the 30,000 outstanding permits will remain valid until they expire five years from now. At which time the sheriff could deny any application on a whim!

    I also don’t think the Dems will like the result of having this law overturned, and they’ll scream like stuck pigs when they see the list of legislation that could be challenged if this ruling stands! I believe they would quickly re-vote and pass this legislation back into law in a heartbeat. That or lose their jobs!

    Lillehaug did some judge-shopping, and found a judge who’d back him on this one… Soon the left wingers will find a judge that delcares the Constitution unconstitutional….

    yoda840
    Western North Carolina
    Posts: 91
    #312540

    not counting NC (“home”), I have privilages in 23 states…. that will affect my decisions on where to travel …. I like to be,and feel, safe … and my ability to control the safety of my immediate surroundings, is very important to me … for what its worth – I am a certified instructor, former swat team member and public official …. I have jumped through all the hoops ….. and, when other states choose to honor that, then I can spend money in that state.
    Barry

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.