(MN) More whining from the left


PDA






powerstrk
August 4, 2003, 01:40 PM
David L. Lillehaug: Stumbling on surprises in the new gun bill, and hoping for a few fixes
David L. Lillehaug

Published August 3, 2003 LILL03

Even those who believe that the conceal-carry law passed by the Legislature and signed the same day by the governor will deter crime are starting to see that the law contains unwelcome surprises.

The conceal-carry law dramatically (and, I believe, unconstitutionally) affects the free exercise of religion. That issue is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit by dozens of faith communities. But there are many other troubling but little-scrutinized provisions tucked away in the law's 27 single-spaced pages.

Regarding the permits that the law said sheriffs "shall issue":

• Despite its popular name, the conceal-carry permit does not require that firearms be concealed. A permit holder may walk down the street with a visible gun, so long as the gun is not brandished.

• You need not be a resident of Minnesota to get a Minnesota permit. No fingerprint is required. Unlike for autos, you need not provide proof of insurance and a picture.

• The permit is not limited to pistols. Apparently rifles and shotguns may be carried in public. Nor is the permit limited to one gun; as much heat can be packed as can be carried.

• Training is required to get a permit, but no minimum hours are specified and the training need not be on the guns actually carried.

• Only six groups are certified to train. Only one is for-profit. The for-profit group happens to be owned by the law professor who helped write the law.

• Sheriffs have authority to consider whether the permit applicant is dangerous. But if the applicant has been acquitted of a violent crime because guilt wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the sheriff must disregard the entire violent incident. Some, perhaps unfairly, call this the O.J. provision.

The conceal-carry statute drastically changes Minnesota law about where permit-holders may carry. Many counties, cities, universities and school districts are fighting for the right to control firearms on their property. But the law also cuts back on the traditional rights of businesses and nonprofits:

• Parking lot owners and employers may not prohibit firearms in their lots carried by permitholders.

• Building owners who don't want firearms must give a posted notice (in Arial typeface, no less) and a personal notice. What's less known is that a gun-carrier who ignores the notices and then refuses to leave can't be arrested. Under this law, trespass with a firearm is only a petty misdemeanor with a maximum $25 fine for the first offense. A petty misdemeanor is not a crime under Minnesota law and won't be included in the annual reports on criminal violations by permitholders. Trespass without a firearm remains a misdemeanor.

(Ironically, while decriminalizing trespass with a firearm, the Legislature made it a misdemeanor, a real crime, to litter a state park with fireworks debris.)

• In contrast with other firearms laws, the trespasser with a gun does not forfeit his firearm. Nor is the gun forfeited if carried illegally on school property or while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

• If you're a landlord and don't want guns in your leased space, forget about it. You can regulate your tenant's stereo, grass length and smoking, but no landlord may prohibit lawful carry by a tenant or the tenant's guests.

• Felons can now go to court and seek to have their right to carry guns restored by court order. The law makes no provision for notifying their victims or the prosecutor.

A few of these issues started to emerge near the end of the 2003 legislative session, but got caught in political quicksand. Some supporters of conceal-carry refused to allow free debate and amendment, while some opponents openly wished for the worst law possible.

Whether conceal-carry will be repealed, amended or reaffirmed in the next Legislature remains to be seen. In the meantime, all legislators should pledge that these issues will be fully aired. Also, the governor and the attorney general, both very good lawyers, should acknowledge the ticking time bombs in the new law and recommend nonpartisan amendments.

David Lillehaug is a lawyer in Minneapolis.

:barf:

StandingWolf: Its all yours!

If you enjoyed reading about "(MN) More whining from the left" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
August 4, 2003, 07:19 PM
...the governor and the attorney general, both very good lawyers, should acknowledge the ticking time bombs in the new law and recommend nonpartisan amendments.

Say what you will about Minnesota's leftist extremists, you've got to give credit where credit's due: they're the single most loquacious bunch of sore losers and unprincipled anti-Second Amendment bigots in the nation. They've rapidly progressed from the promised blood bath to "ticking time bombs." By this time next week, they'll have concocted an analogy between firearms carried by law-abiding American citizens and hydrogen bombs.

Duncan Idaho
August 4, 2003, 08:28 PM
Grown men that squeal like little girls give me the creeps. Why would anyone want to breed with them?!? :barf: :barf: :barf:

M1911Owner
August 4, 2003, 11:14 PM
OK, where are his problems? He talks about there being problems with the law, lists off a bunch of the good points, and never gets to the problems???? :scrutiny:

Monkeyleg
August 4, 2003, 11:53 PM
Agreed. Everything he mentioned there sounds like my wish list for Wisconsin, except for the part about grass length and smoking.

Where do I sign up?

If you enjoyed reading about "(MN) More whining from the left" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!