MN Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional


July 13, 2004, 02:07 PM
What a great day for the state of Minnesota. A Ramsey county judge decided that the MN shall-issue carry permit law is unconstitutional at the behest of several do-gooder churches.


If you enjoyed reading about "MN Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
July 13, 2004, 02:17 PM
Good news really.

Now we can get drunk, carry in schools and ignore the "no guns" signs.

Sergeant Bob
July 13, 2004, 02:17 PM
Here's the text of the article.

Judge declares state's gun law unconstitutional
Tony Kennedy, Star Tribune
July 14, 2004 GUN0714

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.

July 13, 2004, 02:20 PM
I don't live in Minnesota (used to), but I do travel there often. I've been following this case with some interest. In fact, I have an application for a Minnesota Permit to Carry on my desk at this moment.

This decision could have some unintended consequences for the liberals (and not bad ones, as far as I'm concerned). I'm guessing that many of the state's sacred welfare laws were "bundled" with other laws to promote their passage, bringing the constitutionality of those laws into question as well. I'd bet money someone is researching that issue right now.

Tom Servo
July 13, 2004, 02:25 PM
Don't know how the MN State Police are, but wouldn't it be possible to pass an interim ordinance upholding the issuance of CCWs?

July 13, 2004, 02:39 PM
So ultimately they're going to pull everbody's license? I'd like to see them attempt that one! Trust me....some way some how...this judges ruling is going to be out maneuvered.

July 13, 2004, 02:45 PM
I'm guessing that many of the state's sacred welfare laws were "bundled" with other laws to promote their passage, bringing the constitutionality of those laws into question as well.

Exactly what I was thinking. I reckon it's time for MN residents to find if any laws they don't like were attached to unrelated stuff ;)

Andrew Rothman
July 13, 2004, 02:58 PM
This bites most mightily.

I imagine that the judge will stay his summary judgement pending an appeal.

How the appeal goes is anyone's guess.

This is bad.

July 13, 2004, 03:07 PM
I knew this would happen. CCRN sent out an email a few months back saying it's time for people to quit using Lilehaug's law firm.


Sounded kind of defeatist to me.

July 13, 2004, 03:18 PM
I am not lawyer. But I checked with a buddy of mine who has CCW here in MN like me and was a paralegal.

He said this didn't make any real sense since a Ramsey County Judge didn't have the authority to strike down state law.

Tall Man
July 13, 2004, 03:26 PM
Adath Jeshurun Congregation
Who or what is this?

Edit : I just Googled these folks. They don't appear to act very conservative to me. Given their historical experience, what is it with some Jews' inexplicable aversion to the personal firearm?


July 13, 2004, 04:00 PM
This bites most mightily.

I imagine that the judge will stay his summary judgement pending an appeal.

How the appeal goes is anyone's guess.

This is bad.

I am not so sure. This may very well be a great thing overall, as our permits are still valid, but it would appear that a very large number of Minnesota laws were just declared unconstitutional, not just the MPPA.

I am not really sure that the judge in question had jurisdiction to even make such a ruling.

Andrew Rothman
July 13, 2004, 04:18 PM
From joelr's blog ('ve just been on the phone with a very knowledgeable lawyer, whose strong opinion is that the moment that Mike Hatch files his appeal (my guess is Friday), even where the order applies, it'll be put on hold.

I'll have more to say on the subject when I know more, but, the short form is: relax; it'll be okay.

It should be noted that although Joel doesn't name names, he has from time to time been seen in the company of MNCCRN president and Hamline University law professor Joseph Olson, who is not only the legal mind behind Joel's excellent textbook, but literally wrote the Minnesota carry law.

July 13, 2004, 04:24 PM
IIRC Joseph Olson is also a Gunsite grad.

Andrew Rothman
July 13, 2004, 04:42 PM
AP story, much better than the Star Trib's in most respects...Gun law overturned by judge
Updated: 07/13/2004 02:41:25 PM

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."

*** Well, less than 1% of businesses in the state did, anyway.

July 13, 2004, 04:45 PM
One from the St Paul Paper

Posted on Tue, Jul. 13, 2004

Judge declares concealed carry law unconstitutional


Pioneer Press

In a strongly worded decision chastising the Legislature, a Ramsey County judge has declared Minnesota’s concealed carry gun law unconstitutional and forbids its enforcement.

District Judge John T. Finley, in his 23-page decision, sided with the arguments of more than 30 religious and charitable organizations who sued to have the law struck down, contending that the plan was attached improperly to an unrelated bill with a vague name.

Filed in October, the lawsuit contended legislators used an "unusual parliamentary maneuver" to get the now year-old law approved. It argued that the plan was attached to a technical bill for the Department of Natural Resources that mentioned a need to train out-of-state hunters who have permits to carry their weapons.

"Attaching this very important and divisive amendment to a totally unrelated, noncontroversial bill without providing notice to the general public is a direct violation of the state constitution and the holdings of our highest court," Finley wrote. "Attaching this amendment to an unrelated issue, which had already unanimously passed the Senate, prevented the public from having any input."

In the last line of the ruling, Finley wrote, "The defendants, their agents and employees are permanently enjoined and prohibited from enforcing provisions of the law ...."

David Lillehaug, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, was pleased with the judge’s decision.

"We were not surprised. We thought from the beginning that this law had been passed in the wrong way. It’s only common sense that a bill regarding the Department of Natural Resources has nothing to do with a concealed carry amendment," he said.

The state had sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, contending that the public was made aware of how the plan was being considered.

Lillehaug, along with his co-counsels, is anticipating an appeal.

"I am expecting this argument to end in Minnesota’s highest court," he said.

Officials with Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch's office said the decision is still being reviewed.

After reading some of the ruling, I am quite optimistic. The premise that we were not informed of this going on because it snuck through is ridiculous. There were Democrats wearing flack-jackets (against senate rules) on the floor during the debate. It was all over the news for weeks before it was passed.[COLOR=royalblue]

July 13, 2004, 04:45 PM
Assuming the media story is correct, the key here is the legislature screwed up by violating the State Constitution when drafting the legislation. The judge ruled on the law as determined by the Minnesota Constitution. He did what he was required as a matter of law.

Anyone got a link to the text of the actual decision by the judge?

Andrew Rothman
July 13, 2004, 04:48 PM
The decision:

July 13, 2004, 04:52 PM

If this ruling is upheld (questionable, because the original bill did mention a need for hunters from out of state needing permits, and also addressed fishing permits, snowmobile permits and licenses, and ATV permits and licenses) we pretty much get to throw out a whole lot of laws, including, potentially, many social programs the democratic party here loves.

I wonder if they are going to try and invalidate permits. If they do so, the refunding of funds is really going to hurt the budgets of the metro area sheriffs.

July 13, 2004, 05:00 PM
Well I read it and it's clear the judge acted correctly based on the MN State Constitution.

July 13, 2004, 05:02 PM
the original bill did mention a need for hunters from out of state needing permits, and also addressed fishing permits, snowmobile permits and licenses, and ATV permits and licenses These issues are directly related to the title of the legislation as the MN Constitution requires. The CCW permits do not. The legislature screwed up on this one.

July 13, 2004, 05:13 PM
Considering that the old permits required a DNR class, and that permit system was being changed/reformed, this legislation was more closely linked to the original bill than many wellfare, spending, and even criminal statute legislation is to the bills they are attached to. If upheld as unconstitutional, it will actually be a big, nay, huge blow to the democratic party in the end, as a whole lot of their pet legislation here in Minnesota will now be null and void. :D

July 13, 2004, 05:59 PM
egad, what a day to be glued to the phone....

My only observations so far are the following:

1. Since the other bills were not being challenged in court, I question whether or not those will be found to be "unconstitutionally" passed...

But I think we could find one or ten of those to challenge now, couldn't we? It might be an important move to make....

2. And, it behooves us all now, regardless of our legislative district, to act on a statewide level to defeat as many of the DFL / flakjacket jackasses as we can this fall. Which ones are the most vulnerable?

God help me, if this gets the blissninnies running around screaming again, I think I'm gonna have to shoot more without muffs.

July 13, 2004, 06:08 PM
Oh, bills will be challanged.

Lobotomy Boy
July 13, 2004, 06:22 PM
What's up with Hatch's press conference? He was supposed to speak a couple of hours ago but I haven't heard a word.

I was shooting at Bill's just before Channel 5 reported live from the range. I gave a Star Tribune reporter an earful. I hope he focuses on the important stuff I said instead of dwelling on the fact that I called the Unitarians a bunch of damned hippies.

July 13, 2004, 06:22 PM
The law was not passed in violation of the Constitution.

This single-subject question is one with a long judicial history, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has set clear guidelines on what is necessary for an amendment to be considered germane.

The problem that this provision of the MN Constitution is intended to avoid is that a provision will be snuck onto a law and then be passed without consideration or debate.

In this case, reference the provision was included in the title of the bill. The question of whether it was germane was raised on the floor, was debated, and voted on, and passed overwhelmingly.

The legislature declared that a provision concerning the issuance of handgun carry permits, and the recognition of carry permits from other states, was germane to a bill concerning the issuance of motorcycles, snowmobile, ATV, and boats, and personal watercraft permits, and of firearm safety certificates, and the recognition of those permits and certificates from other states.

In the decision, the judge made a number of factual statements that are simply not true. He described the original bill as amending only Minn. Stat. 84.01, which it did not, and he described the MCPPA as amending only Minn. Stat. 624.714, which it did not.

It's a very poorly-argued decision, and it's unlikely to stand up.

Remember Missouri? When the judge threw out the shall-issue law using language that almost seemed designed to be overturned?

This isn't much different.

Standing Wolf
July 13, 2004, 06:30 PM
Relax, everybody. Minnesota's leftist extremists are just trying to snatch back the Loudest Snivelling and Whining Award from Missouri's leftist extremists. Missouri's leftist extremists will never surrender their trophy.

Lobotomy Boy
July 13, 2004, 06:31 PM
jdege, what can we do to help? Who can we bombard with letters and phone calls? What can we do to start unraveling other bundled bills if this holds up?

Andrew Rothman
July 13, 2004, 06:31 PM
I hope you're right.

My hat is off to you, Jeff. I know you're not a lawyer, but you sure seem to have a handle on these issues. Thanks for posting.

Andrew Rothman
July 13, 2004, 06:35 PM
What the f:cuss: is wrong with these Jews that oppose gun rights? What the h:cuss: do they think "never again" means? Do they think that bad people will leave you alone if you just f:cuss:ing wish that they will?


July 13, 2004, 06:51 PM
with the caveat that IANAJ, I did my best to understand this during the summers I worked at a boy's camp in NW WI. The camp is well-established, and it came out of the 'urban camping' movement in the early part of the last century. This one was started, basically, as a Jewish boys summer camp by a group from the St. Louis area.

At the time I was there, it was owned by a couple I would call secular and liberal, who lived in Chicago. They were wonderfully committed to the marksmanship program, but sure bought into the AWB game.

I knew them, and some other administration, well enough to speak frankly about these questions as a WASP who simply didn't get it. I remember at least one extended conversation who was my immediate boss, as it were--and I ended up, after listening to him, to thinking that his liberal politics simply overrode his cultural/religious heritage.

But I truly don't get it, still.

Lobotomy Boy
July 13, 2004, 09:30 PM
I think you are seeing a general East Coast bias against guns. Generally speaking, Jewish people seem to have a lot of cultural ties to the East Coast, particularly New York City, and that is where any anti-gun bias might come from.

But we digress. The reporter who interviewed me for the Star Tribune called me twice. The second time he called he said Hatch is going to appeal the ruling and that should put the ruling on hold until it is heard by the State Supreme Court.

July 13, 2004, 11:06 PM
The court's decision was probably my fault. I just took the CCW class/test two days ago, so something like this was bound to happen.:)

Aside from the obvious frustration, this is a pretty interesting development with a number of far-reaching implications. I can't wait to see how a number of governmental entities and special interest groups will line up on this issue. Ordinarily, their reaction would be predictible (strongly anti-gun), but I'm guessing a significant number of their own sacred cows were passed with similar kinds of "multi-purpose" legislation, whose status is now at risk.

Figure 6 to 7 months for a decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and, if the Minnesota Supreme Court accepts the case for review (it does not have to accept review) another 6 to 10 months or so for a final decision. (There is a small chance the Minnesota Supreme Court would take the case directly, bypassing the Court of Appeals.) In the meantime, what will happen with current permits and applications (and new applications from people who, say, just got qualified on Sunday)? I don't know, but I think there's a good chance the trial court's decision will be stayed pending final appellate review, meaning the law would remain in effect until a final court decision.

My wild, off-the-cuff belief is that there's probably a 50-60% chance the trial court's decision ultimately will be reversed on appeal. But we won't know for sure until--at the earliest--the state legislature has been in session for a month or two next year, so who knows what kind of compromise deal they might craft to replace the existing law? Interesting stuff.

Standing Wolf
July 13, 2004, 11:08 PM
What the *** is wrong with these Jews that oppose gun rights?

It can't happen here.

July 13, 2004, 11:22 PM
Well its comforting to know that this judge is a stand up guy and simply will not bend his convictions for personal gain...!?!?!?!?!?


"Judge John Finley received a reprimand when it was discovered that, as a county commissioner, he voted to grant a significant tax break to a company in which he held a 50% stake. Some observers predict that the scandals will have little impact on the judges’ chances for victory....."

A easy-to-manipulate run-away jack0ff turns into a tool of overreacting lefties. Not at all a surprise.

This will go away. I hope there are a mess of lefties that get crushed and demoralized in the process.


July 13, 2004, 11:35 PM
I think you are seeing a general East Coast bias against guns. Generally speaking, Jewish people seem to have a lot of cultural ties to the East Coast, particularly New York City, and that is where any anti-gun bias might come from.

I think you're right on the money, but I think it goes back even further than that. I think you'll find that an awful lot of American Jews are recent decendants of totalitarian states in Europe. That doesn't make them any more right, but it does make their politics a little more understandable.

The flip side of that is that the Jews in America who "get it" are 3 or 4X as commited as those on the other side of the fence.

If we reduced the issue to nationality rather than ethnicity I suspect that recently decended American Russians, Germans, Mexicans and Poles are just as likely overall to oppose RKBA as "Jews". We shouldn't reduce an argument regarding human rights to racial issues.

July 13, 2004, 11:44 PM
in his rant, Stand_Watie--but I'll let him clarify as needed. And, I still dunno if we have the labels right--I would lean to 'cultural identity' as the identifier, and from my discussions at camp a few years ago, I would further tie it to "urban" and socio-economic factors.

While there may be "east coast" factors in this mindset, the majority of staff, etc., who were tied into this camp through their Jewish heritage were largely from the Midwest.

Mostly, I think it is intellectualization--period. Once more, Standing Wolf has it right.

July 13, 2004, 11:52 PM
While there may be "east coast" factors in this mindset, the majority of staff, etc., who were tied into this camp through their Jewish heritage were largely from the Midwest.

My point was that I think the largest factor in such a mindset was the values that were taught to the actors by their parents and grandparents.

Values that are a great deal more likely to be anti-rkba if they are decended from circa 1900 Poland or Russia than if they are decended from circa 1900 Minnesota - rather than if they are circumcised or eat pork.

July 14, 2004, 12:00 AM
This ruling will help motivate the faithful for the election.

I especially like the observation that those persons who already have a permit are no longer obligated to observe the "guns banned in these premises" signs.

Wonder what the Mall of America thinks about that???

July 14, 2004, 12:25 AM
Really, there never was an obligation to obey the guns banned signs. Your only obligation was to leave if asked.

July 14, 2004, 12:42 AM
Good coverage on Channels 4, 5 and 11 re Judge Finley's decision today that the Legislature acted unconstitutionally in passing the RTC law. Mentioned that many laws are passed that way including the woman's right to know (adoption vs. abortion) law which was attached to a circus regulation bill in 2002. John Caile of CCRN got a long piece on at least 2 channels. AG Hatch said (1) state will appeal, (2) seek stay of decision's effect and (3) current permits still valid.

July 14, 2004, 01:23 AM
In the meantime, what will happen with current permits and applications (and new applications from people who, say, just got qualified on Sunday)? I don't know, but I think there's a good chance the trial court's decision will be stayed pending final appellate review, meaning the law would remain in effect until a final court decision. If the decision isn't stayed immediately, when the AG files his appeal on Friday, expect to have a lot of banks, insurance companies, security companies, armored car companies, etc., lined up to file suit on Monday.

Finley's opionion didn't say anything at all regarding what should happen to outstanding permits. Just one of its many shortcomings.

And that means that the status of every private security guard is called into question, and that every company that hires or contracts for armed security is facing legal liabilities until this issue is settled.

Lobotomy Boy
July 14, 2004, 07:40 AM
Great info on the judge, Diesle. I will put that to very good use in the near future. Let's hope that when we get done with him, Finley won't be able to get a job as a research assistant with an ambulance chaser at a strip-mall law firm.

I have a bit more experience working closely with Jewish people than some long-ago summer camping trip. I work in publishing and publish many Jewish authors and photographers. Just this year I spent a week at one author's home in Colorado working on a book project. I stayed with him and his family, and several nights the conversation over dinner turned to guns and gun laws. They are a terrific family, smart, funny, with two of the finest teenager kids that I have ever met. But like many Jews in the Midwest, their roots are in the East Coast. The family still maintains an apartment in Manhattan, even though they have lived in Colorado since the late 1960s. And like most people I have met from that part of the world, all they knew about guns was that they are dangerous devices solely used for killing people. They had literally never had conversations with intelligent pro-gun people before. I honestly believe I was the first person who ever articulated a reasonable pro-gun argument to them. It was interesting watching their eyes light up when they heard me compare target shooting to Zen meditation.

I don't know if I converted them to a pro-gun view point, but I do know that they will never again take an anti-gun stand quite so automatically. They'll at least put a bit more thought into it.

July 14, 2004, 08:22 AM
AG Hatch said (1) state will appeal, (2) seek stay of decision's effect and (3) current permits still valid. Hatch will run for governor in '06. Think he wants our votes ;) ? He sure does.

Cindy Brucato was on Soucheray's show yesterday and Joe questioned if Hatch can be fair on this issue, since he'd probably try to court the anti's. Brucato said Hatch will be and is a gun rights guy going all the way back to Perpich's (sp?) administration. So that's good.


Lobotomy Boy
July 14, 2004, 08:45 AM
Hatch is smart to be pro Second Amendment. He's in tune with the majority of the DFL that way. The perception of the DFL is skewed because of the disproportionate power weilded by DFLers in Hennipen and Ramsey counties. These people are isolated, arrogant, and totally out of touch with the rest of the state, but they make so much noise that they have power that is completely out of proportion to their actual numbers.

Let's show them what their numbers really are. Let's show Finley and Lillehaug and Susan Peterson and the rest of these reactionaries what grass-roots activism really is.

July 14, 2004, 09:37 AM
local news station has a on line poll on the subject maybe we can landslide the poll on this.

it will only take a minute, last check was 56% saying the law was not a violation of state law.

July 14, 2004, 09:38 AM
I'm at somewhat of a loss as to what to do on this. A judge will not be influenced by e-mails or phone calls.

We can write and call the Gov. and show he has our support, and I'll write and call my Liberal representatives in the Liberal Lakes district.

What else Minnesotans? I noticed that the Hennepin County Sheriff was quick to put all applications on hold.

July 14, 2004, 09:52 AM
So Borchardt says he's just hopeful that what will happen is the sheriffs will be able to keep giving out permits as they have been pending an appeal on this decision. Interesting comment from a sheriff. Of course he is elected and from outstate MN.

July 14, 2004, 09:55 AM
the summer camp experiences were not long ago--they were in the mid-to-late nineties.

I was the Director of the Marksmanship program, and I was the resident 'burr under the saddle' as it were, in providing an alternative viewpoint to the prevailing CPV statements trotted out by other staff.

This was in 1996-97-98, and other attitudes included no small amount of support for sick Willy as a victim of Monica, etc.

July 14, 2004, 11:52 AM
Alright- I'm IN!! Whatever whoever is doing wherever and whenever- let me know- I'm all in!

That said, I'm not terribly worried this decision, as
1. Does it really matter what some anti with a bench in Ramsey County says about a state law?
2. IF The law gets struck down by a real court, my permit does not expire for almost 5 years- so as selfish as it may sound... I'm covered- for now.
3. IF The Law gets struck down, There's no blood in the streets, and we have 20,000+ who now have a direct interest in making sure that this cannot happen again. Maybe with some improvements.

Discussion on point #3- Let's say this law gets struck, and it takes 6 months to get a new law on the books. If our permits remain valid, but under the old carry laws, there are no provisions to prohibit lawful carry from a private establishment- correct? There are no provisions to prohibit lawful carry in schools, daycare facilities, etc- correct? Again- no blood in the streets, or the schools. This might be a step to legislation that is even more pro-carry than the current bill.

I did not have a permit to carry under the old system, so I am not completely familiar with its nuances.

July 14, 2004, 11:55 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^yes but...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MPPA Update. – Repost Far and Wide.

Ok, it has been an interesting day. As, I'm sure most of you
Ramsey County District Court Judge Finley declared the MPPA
unconstitutional based on its method of passage. CCRN leadership has
had a chance to:

1. Review the decision
2. Contact trusted parties regarding there views and plans
3. Understand the options and likely outcomes.

Let me give you a quick summary of each and what we would like to ask
of you.

1. The decision is ripe with errors of fact and law making it a
tremendous target for appeal. Good for us.

2. The Attorney General will appeal the decision – (probably
to the Supreme Court). The appeal should (extraordinarily high
probability) include a stay of the district courts decision. That
will make the MPPA the operating law again. We anticipate this
happening within a week or so.

4. We are very confident that the passage process will stand
judicial review. The Supreme Court is unlikely to invalidate votes
on germaneness (in the house) and votes as to whether to send
legislation to a conference committee (in the senate). Both
germaneness and conference committee votes took pace with in the
legislature and it is unlikely the Supreme Court would intrude into
the rules of the house and senate to that level. BTW, the District
Court decision has no record of this.

5. The Attorney General has indicated that issued permits are
valid. We certainly concur.

6. If you have an application in process, its processing is likely
to be suspended until a stay is in place. If you planned on applying
shortly – wait until the stay is in place. We want to strongly
encourage everyone who has put off getting there permit to get
trained and apply once the stay is in place. Along with a valuable
statement, issued permits will have a high probability of being
grandfathered in should, for some reason, an appeal goes badly.

7. Some County Sheriff may issue anyway since they have complete
discretion to do so under the old legislation. We believe that
police chiefs will assign there issuing authority over to their
County Sheriff. Consult with your County Sheriff. Until a stay is
in place we believe that only one year permits can be issued (anther
good reason to wait).

8. CCRN requests that permit holders abide by the MPPA law until
such time that a stay is in place. That is what was passed and we
believe that by taking the high road we will make a strong
statement. So although carrying into schools and day care centers
may be temping (since it was legal under the old law) we request that
you don't.

There are a number of silver linings in this cloud. More to come

July 14, 2004, 12:27 PM
on this subject--they had Hatch (AG in MN), Lillehaug (The appelant lead lawyer, chief antigun legal counsel), and Sviggum (MN Rep, titular head of conservative movement, as it were) commenting.

1. Hatch is appealing, etc. So, as has been said before, it's on its way to the State Supreme Court, no matter who wins.

2. Lillehaug is far better than I had previously given him credit for. The new host, kerrie whats-her-face, clearly is 'progressively biased,' and helped make Lillehaug look good--but Lillehaug's commentary included not only legal comments on the merits of the case, but one of the best spins I've heard yet on the fearmongering about '90,000 licenses on the streets' from three (two) years ago.

Now it is not "blood-in-the-streets-the-sky-is-falling" out of these people, but the fact that there are only 22,000 permits suggests it is not a very important issue, and (by implication) we probably don't even need to do it again.

I hope Jdege read is a good one--I think the battle is up for another marathon--and those damn Senators are not up for re-election!

July 14, 2004, 01:08 PM
In response to M Payne's question of Jews forgetting "never again", rest assured that not all Jews stand behind the Adath Yeshurin, et al, suit in the first place. Frankly, I've let my feelings be heard. Let's not mistake the actions of a few for the beliefs of the many.

Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it!

July 14, 2004, 01:15 PM
one of the best spins I've heard yet on the fearmongering about '90,000 licenses on the streets' from three (two) years ago....but the fact that there are only 22,000 permits suggests it is not a very important issue, and (by implication) we probably don't even need to do it again.
Actually that's a pretty lame argument. They lowered the blood alachol level to .08 and it will save far less than 22,000 people.

They pass a lot of laws all the time that affest far fewer people.

July 14, 2004, 05:43 PM
According to the NRA Website, one of the "church" persons trying to get the MN concealable handgun law thrown out is an organizer with the MILLION MOM MARCH. Surprise Surprise, that this person is not your average Joan Doe Sunday Church Goer as they would have us believe, but a professional Rebel Rouser with an agenda.

You have to be suspicious of their definition of "Church People" or any other definition for that matter before you can take it for face value!

Just like the anti gunners would have us believe that 8 "children" a day are killed by guns. So thus, on this premise alone they claim we need to renew the AWB. As Hillaryesque as can be; It's for the sake of "the children". -Never mind that their definition of "children" will include eight 20 year old gang bangers doing drive bys!

Lobotomy Boy
July 15, 2004, 07:56 PM
I haven't found any new information today. I did find this, though:,2933,125849,00.html


Lobotomy Boy
July 15, 2004, 10:58 PM

July 19, 2004, 11:43 PM
Any news?

Lobotomy Boy
July 20, 2004, 09:21 AM
This morning Hatch announced that he is going to appeal the ruling for a number of reasons.

Let's hope we see a flood of permits issued during the window between the appeal and the State Supreme Court's hearing the appeal.

July 20, 2004, 09:29 AM
Nobody has mentioned us poor saps with out of state permits!! I imagine my permit is still valid.

Lobotomy Boy
July 20, 2004, 09:45 AM
The ruling only affected future applications. Current state permits remained valid, so I assume reciprocity permits remained valid.

July 20, 2004, 09:57 AM

Current permits remain in force, under the terms of the old law.

The old law recognized no out-of-state permits.

Andrew Rothman
July 21, 2004, 04:18 PM
Wait. Sturmruger has a Minnesota permit. HE is from out of state, not his permit.

I think this one requires a call to the AG's office (or waiting for the Finley ruling to be stayed).

August 23, 2004, 01:56 AM
Any updates?

August 23, 2004, 08:56 AM

Keep an eye on Joel Rosenberg's live journal for updates.

August 23, 2004, 01:57 PM
The last paragraph is the biggest lie I've ever heard. I wonder if Finley read the suit this time...
Ramsey judge won't set aside conceal carry ruling


Pioneer Press

The Ramsey County District judge who declared Minnesota's "conceal and carry" law as unconstitutional has rejected a request to leave the law in place while his ruling is appealed.

In an order filed today, Judge John T. Finley denied the request made by lawyers with the state attorney general's office.

Finley's ruling means those who seek a permit to carry a handgun will have to do so under the requirements of Minnesota's old permit law, which gives county sheriff's and chiefs of police greater discretion when deciding who gets a permit.

Monday's action is the latest in a series of rulings on the controversial law.

Last week, the state Supreme Court rejected a request from the state attorney general's office to consider the case early.

The state attorney general's office asked for the direct review as part of its appeals filed after the July 13 ruling by Finley. The Minnesota Court of Appeals will hear the case, but arguments may not take place until later this year.

More than 30 religious and charitable organizations, along with the city of Minneapolis, sued the state to have the controversial law struck down. They argued that it infringed on their rights to ban guns from their properties.

They also contended that the Legislature approved the measure in an improper way.

Finley agreed that the passage of the law violated the single-subject rule of the state constitution. The measure had been attached to a technical bill benefiting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

After the concealed carry law was overturned, Minnesota's old handgun permit law went back into effect.

In asking Finley to put aside his ruling while it's on appeal, the state argued the law provided money that helped law enforcement agencies offset the cost of background checks for permit seekers. The state also argued that it shortened the amount of time — from 30 days to 21 days — officials have to either deny or grant a permit.

Opponents of the law believe the former statute doesn't inhibit their property rights or religious freedoms. They also argued that the new law did little to prohibit permits for those who should not carry a handgun.

Andrew Rothman
August 23, 2004, 04:48 PM
Well, it's not like we thought that Judge Finley would suddenly get an attack of the reasonables.

He's an activist, apparently on shaky legal ground, and will get hopefully receive his proper drubbing from the appeals court later this year.

August 23, 2004, 11:55 PM
Or Hatch can now ask the appellate courts to order a stay during the pendency of the appeal.

Andrew Rothman
August 24, 2004, 02:06 AM
If only. I'm afraid that Hatch has been playing to lose.

August 24, 2004, 08:53 AM
there is a up side. the aclu didnt file a friend of the court breif on time but the mnccrn people did. and the high court kicked out the late aclu breif so IMO the appeal should be a 2 against 1 tag team match. I think it would be fun to send a list of all the things that hermit holders can do now under the old law that they could not do under mppa. like carry on schools, daycare centers, and how the gun ban signs dont mean boo.... and see if they still think the old law doesn't inhibit their property rights or religious freedoms. also see how they like it when a state program or 2 that they like gets shut down, or funding for cities as in minneapolis. I kind of hope that the state congress gets a new one passed and than the courts up hold the descion and watch alot of liberal spending bills get rushed into court and killed in the same way.

August 24, 2004, 11:46 AM
Gee, you have to love the ACLU fighting against our rights on this issue.

August 24, 2004, 03:53 PM
On the surface, the ruling sounds very appropriate. It's a shame it had an impact on the MN gun owners. I like the law that says non-germane amendments are prohibited. Otherwise, such amendments make a mockery of legislation, beg for line item vetoes, or allow too much gamesmanship in the legislature. Something really bad could have sneaked through just as easily. You win some and you lose some.

Now it remains to be seen if other laws passed in a similar way will come under question and be the basis of other suits. Gun owners could well retaliate.

August 24, 2004, 07:27 PM
but I think we've been outflanked by an old-boys' network of high-status people.

Consider these factors:

1) A social network of MN elitists who sponsor the primary MN antigun group (MC Citizens concerned) and who appear to share some common social circles (churches) with

2) a larger group of MN activist churches, who have

3) members of their congregation to be other political figures, who have contact with...

4) Former (Republican, sort of) Governors who speak out vociferously against the law, and who

5) network with other politicians through still more church or social groups, and add in

6) a VERY poorly-presented appeal by the AG office, by the ONLY Democrat in higher level elected office and who wants to run for Governor (he is generally progun, but he has to live with his DFL cohorts)....

That kind of analysis, along with what seem to me to be unsound legal opinions by a soon-to-retire judge, is the only way I can get this thing to make sense.

While I don't follow the legislative action closely, I do know that the "one subject per bill" has become looser and looser over the years. If the challenge stands on that issue, then there are some pet 'liberal' bills that ought to come off the tape when challenged as well. Now, are some such challenges forthcoming to begin gaining more clout/trading cards?

Best guess: 'the opposition' to the current/recently invalidated law is planning on a s-l-o-w end to this one, in the hopes that the pro-carry movement will lose its potency by the time it can REALLY become an issue again--which, effectively, won't be until the MN SENATE can be up for election in two years. If the election this year trends to the DFL, then their hopes are up that they can keep it off the table.

This year, then, if the election trends conservative, a 'repaired' pro-carry can get tied up by the Senate for either one of two concerns, both of which are contingent on the final interpretation by the state Supreme Court--which will NOT be forthcoming before the end of the Legislative Session.

There's a concerted group of elitists of all political stripe protecting us from ourselves. Too many RINOs in MN, and not enough of a clear majority of gun people. This fall's election is critical.

August 24, 2004, 10:07 PM
I know that a state rep from Big Lake has said he will challange the bill that funded light rail. It was passed in a similar bill. That would surely get some panties in a bunch.

August 25, 2004, 08:58 AM
I like the law that says non-germane amendments are prohibited. Otherwise, such amendments make a mockery of legislation, beg for line item vetoes, or allow too much gamesmanship in the legislature. You are believing that the paper is saying on this. Rule #1 in Minnesota is Never, never, never believe what the paper says as 100% truth.

The bill was added to a bill on gun safety and training requirements. It was hardly added to a bill to fund say Kindergarten programs or something TOTALLY unrelated. Bills like this have been passed to years. If this ruling stays, what is a related bill?

Could a conservation program provision be included in a farm bill? Would laws concerning drunk driving be allowed in a transportation bill? The feds withheld transportation money to our state for not lowing the DWI limit to .08. How is that related? What about the funding for the state patrol? Where exactly does that come in? Transportation? LEO funding?

If every single issue has to be passed like Finley says, then these guys will always be in session and never get anything through.

August 25, 2004, 09:49 AM
While the article may be technically accurate it was misleading and is not the whole story. By the same token, posts on this thread are not in complete context.

If what you are saying is true, it seems to me that such a ruling would establish a precedent that would strike down all laws passed by amendment..any amendment by definition not precisely the same subject as the original bill. I would expect that the legislature would have something to say about that. I had assumed that the test was whether the amendment was germane to the bill and that some reasonable judgment had been applied.

August 25, 2004, 12:33 PM
The Minnesota Supreme Court has established specific guidelines to avoid a challenge on the single subject rule

1st, there must be a common filament among the provisions of the bill.

2nd, all of the provisions of the bill must be included in the title.

3rd, all of the provisions of the bill must be debated.

The purpose of the single subject rule, according to the Court, is to prevent provisions from being added in committee and then passed without notice or debate.

The MCPPA was the single most-debated bill in the history of the Minnesota legislature.

In the case of the MCPPA, a provision regarding the training for, the issuance of, and the recognition of other states' carry permits was added to a bill that dealt with provisions regarding the training for, the issuance of, and the recognition of other states' boating licenses, ATV licenses, personal watercraft licenses, and hunter safety certificates.

The question of whether the amendment was germane was raised on the floor of the House, and the majority of the House determined that it was germane.

In the only case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court has overturned a provision because of the single subject rule, the provision was added in committee, was not added to the title, and was never debated on the floor.

The challengers could honestly argue that they had no idea that the provision was in the bill when they voted for it.

If the MCPPA violates the single subject rule, every omnibus spending bill passed in the last ten years violates the single subject rule.

August 25, 2004, 02:33 PM
I had assumed that the test was whether the amendment was germane to the bill and that some reasonable judgment had been applied.

As stated above, the legal precident is that the restriction is to stop the legislature from passing a law with something totally irrelevant buiried in it that is not known about by the other legislators and is not debated.

I watched the passage of the MPPA. Considering the length of the senate's debate and the amount of TV coverage the whole thing got, it is quite difficult to argue that this legislation was snuck into law without anyone knowing about it.

As for upholding this decision, I say bring it on. The legal chaos that would result from this ruling being upheld at the MSC level is staggering. Legislators have been very careful to avoid even talking about the subject of criminal law that was passed in "non germane" bills, and if violent criminals are released because of some twisted desire to restrict my rights, well, there will be some serious political consequences here in Minnesota for the DFL party.

August 25, 2004, 02:46 PM
has anyone got a list, or have a sense of some bills that were passed we can start talking about on the forums?

This thing still flummoxes me, to be honest--I can't believe the judge was THAT dumb to open this can of worms. That's why I want to keep putting on my tinfoil hat and see a conspiracy that will help this network to screw us.

So, it's time for the brawl, like Goalie suggests.

Or, is this a diversion from a more-germane / stronger legal issue of the property rights side of the argument?

Lobotomy Boy
August 25, 2004, 11:41 PM
The thing that torques me the most is that the newspapers, radio, and television reports keep repeating that the amendment was attached to "an unrelated hunting and fishing bill." This is a blatant lie, yet the blathering idiots keep repeating it as if it was truth. I've even seen pro 2A people who don't know the details say the same thing.

If you enjoyed reading about "MN Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!