Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Minnesota is winning

Discussion in 'Legal' started by dustind, May 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,582
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    It passed in the Senate without a single antigun amendment. It is expected to pass the House this week and be signed immediately by the governor.


    From Joel Rosenberg's blog:

    Short form: we won.
    SF 2259 passed the Senate today, with 44 votes (I had predicted 43 earlier in the day; I was wrong), and is on its way to the House. More tomorrow, and later, but the short form is this: we won.

    Senator Dean Johnson's aide came out, after that, and rather imperially demanded that we send our thanks to the Senator for keeping his word. I think that's only fair -- you'll find him at 651.296.3826, or right here. Please do call and email him; I just did, myself.

    The Senate removed all of the silly amendments that came out of Skogie's Crime committee. No fingerprinting; no governments telling you that you can't protect yourself in a park; the same reasonable alcohol limit that we had no trouble living with. A whole barrage of silly amendments were voted down, and a couple passed that were just plain repetitive. (New language repeats the existing language that you've got to show your permit to a cop who asks to see it; it's ambiguous as to what -- if anything -- the penalty might be if you don't, say, because you've left your permit and your handgun at home. Not to worry.)

    The only thing I'm concerned about -- and we'll be discussing this, at length, over the next few days -- are the implications of letting the DPS be the gatekeeper for civilian carry permit training. On the good side, their validation system has been working quite well; on the minus side, one of the reasons it's been working is that NRA- or AACFI-certified instructors weren't required to submit to it.

    All in all, this is a definite win.

    And a bigger one than I thought -- I was quietly predicting 43 votes for final passage; it was 44. (We needed 34.)

    And now, it's on to the House. We should be okay there. More later.



    Here what the Antis have to say

    Video coverage of the debate.
     
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Well done, Minnesotans!
     
  3. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    All the right people are pissed about this. Looks like a win to me!
     
  4. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    :neener:

    to the pro-criminal crowd.
     
  5. Big_R

    Big_R Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    That little strip of land between New York and L.A
    I watched the live Senate coverage on local channel 17 Friday afternoon. It was very nice to see amendment after amendment get voted down (except for making it against the law for a sex offender to carry, and making it mandatory to inform a LEO that you're carrying). I don't have a problem with either. I know a lot of people who were waiting (don't know for what) the last time we were shall issue. I'd expect a bunch of them to get their permits this time.

    On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised to see a legal challenge to this law once it's signed too. The alleged "religious institutions" are still steamed they can't ban firearms from their property. If another lawsuit goes forward, I'll be sure to remind my "religious institution" why I haven't set foot in it since the first law suit.

    Ryan
     
  6. goalie

    goalie Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,168
    Location:
    Minnetonka, Minnesota
    The "religious institutions" are perfectly able to ban firearms from all of their property except the parking lot. It is misleading to say that they are unable to ban firearms, they just are not able to ban them from your car.
     
  7. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Quick question, was it MN or WI that already voted CCW in, but had a judge strike it down?
     
  8. doberman

    doberman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    218
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    MN passed the MCPPA law in 2003 and a judge ruled it out on the basis that it was passed in violation of the MN constitution.
     
  9. sctman800

    sctman800 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Location:
    Westville, Ill.
    Any info on when it will take effect and if it will honor permits from other states or provide for non-resident permits? I will be in Minnesota this July visiting in-laws and have Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Florida non-resident permits. Being from Illinois that is about all I can do for now. Jim.
     
  10. Phantom Warrior

    Phantom Warrior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,073
    Actually it was the MPPA (Minnesota Personal Protection Act), but you got the details right. To get the original bill an up or down vote in the Democrat controlled Senate the bill was attached to another bill that had been passed. A suit was brought by a bunch of churchs who were angry that they couldn't ban guns in peoples' cars as well as inside the church building. The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the requirement in the MN constitution that all laws deal w/ one subject.

    Don't ask my what that has to do w/ the original suit. Or why THIS law got singled out from all the other laws that contain unrelated additions. Well, I could give you some ideas on that one.



    The new MPPA should take effect as soon as it passes the House and Governor Pawlenty signs it. If it passes the Democrat controlled Senate it shold definitely pass the Republican controlled House. Especially considering the hefty margin it passed the Senate by. And Gov. Pawlenty was a leader in the efforts in the House to pass concealed carry reform before he was elected Governor and he signed the original MPPA without a hitch.

    Yeah, I just double-checked the bill text and it takes effect the day after it is enacted.

    If you can get into MN, you could apply for a MN non-resident permit. I'm not sure how reciprocity is going to run this time around. Last time the Attorney General published a list of states (on the DPS website) that had similar training requirements and who's permits would be honored in MN. So I guess you'll have to wait and see. Hopefully this will be all sorted out by July.
     
  11. thebucket

    thebucket Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Awesome!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D is all I have to say. I guess I should start looking for a good CCW gun and holster.
     
  12. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,058
    Location:
    Decatur, AL
    Does anyone know whether those who've received training during the period when the bill was stalled in the courts will be able to use that training to get a permit? Or will they have to take the course all over again?

    We had an instructor here in WI who was conducting courses while the issuance of permits was on hold. Another instructor (from MN) said they were going to try to get language inserted in the bill that would recognize the training people had received during the court battle.
     
  13. Phantom Warrior

    Phantom Warrior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,073
    Monkeyleg,

    I can't find the current law online because the Revisor of Statutes' website hasn't update the law, so it still has all the bad amendments in it. The previous law required that you have proof of training received a year or less before you application for a permit. I'm assuming it should be the same this time around. So if you've had it within the last few months you should be fine.
     
  14. mpthole

    mpthole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Dick - did you read Joel Rosenberg's full blog entry? He talks about how the MN State BCA will now have authority to "approve" various trainers or training programs... and that some of those decisions are forthcoming.

    From the blog,
    and
    I'm interested in this outcome as well, since I just completed my NRA Basic Pistol and Personal Protection instructors training and would like to start holding classes. If I can't get the BCA stamp of approval with NRA Instructor status, I'll have to try for AACFI or something else.
     
  15. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    11
    We might be the only State to have enacted the law twice.
     
  16. ralphie98

    ralphie98 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    261
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    The first time around I didn't get mine because I had just started to get into guns and didn't have what I felt was a necessary knowledge of firearms to be carrying, nor did I have a desire to do so. Now things have changed and I plan to get my permit before I lose the opportunity to do so once again.
     
  17. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    West Virginia had to re-enact it's law after the courts determined the method of issuing to be unconstitutional violation of seperation of powers. The circuit courts, like Virginia, were ordered to issue the permits. They declared it unconstitutional, and the WV Legislature quickly passed a new bill having the Sheriffs issue it.
     
  18. halvey

    halvey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,914
    This is the part I'm unclear on. Do you have to inform the LEO "if asked" or at first contact or....???
     
  19. doberman

    doberman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    218
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Does anybody know where I can get a voting record for SF2259?
    I looked on the capital website but I'm not having any luck. I'm curious as to how my district Senator voted.

    :confused:
     
  20. halvey

    halvey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,914
    http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/legislature/11644012.htm

    REPUBLICANS VOTING YES
    Bachmann (Stillwater); Belanger (Bloomington); Day (Owatonna); Dille (Dassel); Fischbach (Paynesville); Frederickson (New Ulm); Gaither (Plymouth); Gerlach (Apple Valley); Jungbauer (East Bethel); Kierlin (Winona); Kleis (St. Cloud); Koering (Fort Ripley); Larson (Fergus Falls); LeClair (Woodbury); Limmer (Maple Grove); Neuville (Northfield); Nienow (Cambridge); Olson (Minnetrista); Ortman (Chanhassen); Ourada (Buffalo); Pariseau (Farmington); Reiter (Shoreview); Robling (Jordan); Rosen (Fairmont); Ruud (Breezy Point); Senjem (Rochester); Wergin (Princeton)

    REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
    McGinn (Eagan); Michel (Edina)

    REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING
    Hann (Eden Prairie); Johnson, Debbie (Ham Lake)

    DEMOCRATS VOTING YES
    Bakk (Cook); Johnson, Dean (Willmar); Kubly (Granite Falls); Langseth (Glyndon); Lourey (Kerrick); Metzen (South St. Paul); Murphy (Red Wing); Sams (Staples); Saxhaug (Grand Rapids); Scheid (Brooklyn Park); Skoe (Clearbrook); Sparks (Austin); Stumpf (Plummer); Tomassoni (Chisholm); Vickerman (Tracy); Wiger (North St. Paul)

    DEMOCRATS VOTING NO
    Anderson (St. Paul); Berglin (Minneapolis); Betzold (Fridley); Chaudhary (Fridley); Cohen (St. Paul); Dibble (Minneapolis); Foley (Coon Rapids); Higgins (Minneapolis); Hottinger (St. Peter); Kelley (Hopkins); Marko (Cottage Grove); Marty (Roseville); Moua (St. Paul); Pappas (St. Paul); Pogemiller (Minneapolis); Ranum (Minneapolis); Rest (New Hope); Skoglund (Minneapolis); Solon (Duluth)

    INDEPENDENTS VOTING YES
    Kiscaden (Rochester)
     
  21. doberman

    doberman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    218
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    DEMOCRATS VOTING NO

    Marko (Cottage Grove) :mad:


    I guess my calls we unconvincing. I tried. :eek:
     
  22. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Minnesota has won, Wisconsin, Nebraska, California, New Jersey and Illinois will win! :)
     
  23. halvey

    halvey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,914
    Re-passage update!!!!

    From CCRN
    --------------------
    MPPA Update.

    We believe the Minnesota House of Representatives will take up MPPA
    re-enactment legislation on Wednesday May 18th. We have a very important
    message to send to House members.

    Re-enact the MPPA without amendments. Any amendment to the Senate bill
    will send the legislation back to committee in the Senate where it will
    die. Vote passage of the Senate language.

    Please use the CCRN legislature e-mail service at

    http://www.mnccrn.org/ccrn_old/beheard/sendlegemail.html

    Select the “All House†list at the bottom of the “Send to†drop-down
    box list.

    Once the re-enactment legislation passes the house the Governor will
    sign it within a day or so.

    Your efforts have had a tremendous affect on getting this law
    re-enacted. Don’t slow down now. Send you e-mail today while you are at the
    computer.

    Thanks
     
  24. dmallind

    dmallind Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    559
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    Done on the CCRN email.

    I admit I was wrong. I thought that we were being set up to use this as an election issue in 06 (by BOTH sides). As it was both sides deserve credit and kudos. Dean Johnson could have killed this bill but kept his word instead to the anger of many in his party. Pat Pariseau et al. could have used the bill's non-passage to whip up support in their re-election bids in reliably RKBA districts, but got it done for the rest of us instead.

    The bill actually had decent bipartisan support, with quite a few metro area Dems voting for it (ironically both GOPers who voted against were also metro area Reps). Even some urban DFL Reps voted for the repassage.

    The house should be safe. I see little chance of mischief. Even though I sent the email halvey referred to above (which was refreshingly free of the diatribe and meaningless insults that have irked me with CCRN before) and I hope all other MN THRers do so too, you have to be pretty sure Rep. Sviggum knows how these things work and will be quick to whip his caucus into shape and vote down any suicide pill amendments. All in all I am now confident this will get done, and glad to be wrong in my previous pessimism. I suppose it is possible another suit could be filed but I can't think of a basis that would require a blanket injunction against issuance. Any suit would have to be based on specific restrictions such as governmental offices or churches etc, and any injunction while reviewing the suit could not reasonably be applied outside these areas (just like it wasn't before - remember we lost TWO court challenges - the first to the churches where shall issue remained in place at the initial time of challenge. Shall issue was only suspended when the overall Constitutionality case was decided by Judge Finley. This is obviously a non-starter now and I can't for the life of me imagine another general basis for a suit against the bill in toto.)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page