MN Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^yes but...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MPPA Update. – Repost Far and Wide.

Ok, it has been an interesting day. As, I'm sure most of you
know
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
directly
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
shortly.
 
I listened to the MPR midmorning show

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!
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
Hatch to appeal ruling

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.
 
Nobody has mentioned us poor saps with out of state permits!! I imagine my permit is still valid.
 
The ruling only affected future applications. Current state permits remained valid, so I assume reciprocity permits remained valid.
 
Nope.

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

The old law recognized no out-of-state permits.
 
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).
 
Ramsey judge won't set aside conceal carry ruling

The last paragraph is the biggest lie I've ever heard. I wonder if Finley read the suit this time...

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/9474271.htm
Ramsey judge won't set aside conceal carry ruling

BY MARIE McCAIN

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You know, maybe I should start wearing a tinfoil hat....

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Judge denies state's effort to move gun suit to Hennepin Co.
Replies
4
Views
530
LoneStranger
L
A
  • Locked
MN: Conceal-carry ruling due soon from Ramsey County judge
Replies
6
Views
603
SteelyDan
S
F
  • Locked
Court challenge to Minn Carry bill - June 3
Replies
2
Views
430
joelr
J
C
  • Locked
Minnesota: "Churches ask court to void state gun law"
Replies
2
Views
481
HankB
H
F
  • Locked
Government agencies fail to follow the law, MH records insufficient.
Replies
5
Views
415
Leatherneck
L
Back
Top