Judge denies state's effort to move gun suit to Hennepin Co.

[TheeBadOne]

A Ramsey County judge has denied the state's request to move to Hennepin County District Court a challenge by 27 church groups and the city of Minneapolis of a state law that prevents them from banning guns from their parking lots and rental facilities.

Judge John Finley ruled that it would not be more convenient for witnesses in the case to have the challenge moved to Hennepin County where a judge is hearing an earlier challenge to the law brought by other religious groups.

An attorney for the state argued that moving the Ramsey County case to Hennepin County would be more convenient because it would allow the two cases to be consolidated. Attorneys for plaintiffs in the Ramsey County suit opposed the move.

Finley said that there is no guarantee that the two cases would be consolidated if both were in Hennepin County.

He also said that the Ramsey County suit raises an issue not addressed in the Hennepin County challenge: that the gun law was passed in violation of the Minnesota Constitution because it was tacked on to a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) bill allegedly having nothing to do with the gun-carrying issue.

Using the DNR bill as a vehicle for the gun law violates a constitutional provision that says no law shall embrace more than one subject, the Ramsey County suit argues.

It also says the law infringes 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. The church groups say the law violates their guarantees of religious freedom.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/467/4245354.html

 

[dustind]

Is the DNR part true? Or are they refering to how it made it out of comittee?

The claims by the church are rediculous, they can easily ban firearms if they want to.

 

[dandean316]

Yes, it was tacked on to a DNR bill, like the 24 hour waiting period for abortions was tacked onto a CIRCUS bill. This happens all the time, it is nothing new. Hundreds of bills in the past have been passed this way, so I guess if this lawsuit passes we need to sue to get all those laws voided.

Thing I find interesting is the anti's argument is it's against the Minnesota constution, yet they are trying to go against the US constution by removing the "bear" from, "keep and bear arms."

 

[HankB]

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

The church groups want STATE laws to enforce CHURCH policy on CHURCH property? How does this NOT violate the principle of "separation of church and state" that liberals are always bleating about?

Frankly, what gun owners in MN should do is, if their church is a party to these suits, is stop donating to their church, tell their pastor/minister/priest WHY they're not donating, and send their usual donation to a pro-gun organization instead.

 

[LoneStranger]

Simple Mind, Simple Thoughts.

Before the passage of the "Shall Issue" regulations none of the plaintiffs had any problems with violent criminals carrying concealed weapons. This is evidenced by their failure to post their various establishments against CCW by violent criminals. Their failure to march and protest against violent criminal CCW is further evidence of their complacency.

It is only when Lawabiding, Peaceful Citizens are going to be carrying concealed weapons do we see this desire to post signs, make areas off limits to CCW, and march and protest.

Someone should be asking the Plaintiffs, Why are you so afraid of Lawabiding, Peaceful Citizens? What is it about Lawabiding, Peaceful Citizens that frightens you? Why do you feel better when you associate with and extrol the virtues of the Violent Criminal?

Like I said, Simple Mind, Simple Thoughts.