http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/3906771.html
Editorial: New right to carry / A bad idea is now a bad law
Published May 29, 2003 ED29
The hullabaloo that the new Minnesota Personal Protection Act has caused is just the beginning. The law is riddled with contradictions and infringements on rights that may take years to sort out. Indeed, wags have begun to call the law the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act of 2003."
Authors of the act say they did not intend that property owners have to both post signs banning guns and tell each person entering their establishments of the ban. The double requirement was a simple drafting error, they said, fixable with a mere change of one word. But their protestations ring hollow; they were challenged repeatedly about that provision during debate of the act, and they refused to consider amendments to fix it.
The authors of this new law meant it to say precisely what it said when they passed it and when Gov. Tim Pawlenty rushed to sign it. They were full of their power finally to enact this law. They wanted emphatically to make clear that the "right" to carry pistols trumps all other rights. That's why the law is so carefully, precisely written, down to specifying the typeface, type size and wording to be used on signs banning weapons.
The law declares that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers the right of individuals to bear arms -- something to which the U.S. Supreme Court has never agreed. And, curiously, in pursuit of a radical assertion of that "right," the folks behind this new Minnesota law trample on other rights.
Take private property rights, for example. That's something most supporters of gun rights typically feel passionate about. But this gun law prohibits the owners of a rental property, for example, from denying tenants and guests the right to carry pistols. The tenant's statutory gun right trumps the owner's constitutional property rights.
Then there are churches, which have a passel of problems with this new law. Churches are sanctuaries, places of worship, employers and, often, landlords. Many church leaders and members believe as a matter of faith that guns have no place in a church, and they also don't want signs plastered on their doors banning guns. As Bishop James Jelinek of the Episcopal Church observed, "The front door of an Episcopal Church has special meaning. Many front doors are painted red, a color which invokes the blood of Christ and signals a 'sanctuary.' "
The churches argue, and are going to court to prove, that their First Amendment rights to freedom of belief are greatly abridged by this law. They worry that the law prohibits them from requiring that renters ban guns from the areas of church property they use. They worry that they are unable to ban weapons from their parking lots. They worry that, as Jelinek says, "the state of Minnesota is requiring us to speak the words chosen by the state."
Given the onerous signage burden, some businesses are throwing in the towel and throwing open the doors to gun carriers. But some have begun to worry, and consult attorneys, on whether they would become liable for damage caused by a gun if they don't prohibit them. That's just one of the many tangled knots this law weaves.
That's because it is a really stupid law that rights no wrong, cures no ill. It was pushed by a crowd that trumped up a "need" for self-protection to push the fringe ideological belief that every law-abiding American has an absolute right to carry a pistol. Even if true -- and that has not been established -- the right to carry would have about as much relevance to modern life as bloodletting has to modern medicine. This has been a time-wasting debate about a bad idea.
The sooner the entire law is repealed, the better.
Editorial: New right to carry / A bad idea is now a bad law
Published May 29, 2003 ED29
The hullabaloo that the new Minnesota Personal Protection Act has caused is just the beginning. The law is riddled with contradictions and infringements on rights that may take years to sort out. Indeed, wags have begun to call the law the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act of 2003."
Authors of the act say they did not intend that property owners have to both post signs banning guns and tell each person entering their establishments of the ban. The double requirement was a simple drafting error, they said, fixable with a mere change of one word. But their protestations ring hollow; they were challenged repeatedly about that provision during debate of the act, and they refused to consider amendments to fix it.
The authors of this new law meant it to say precisely what it said when they passed it and when Gov. Tim Pawlenty rushed to sign it. They were full of their power finally to enact this law. They wanted emphatically to make clear that the "right" to carry pistols trumps all other rights. That's why the law is so carefully, precisely written, down to specifying the typeface, type size and wording to be used on signs banning weapons.
The law declares that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers the right of individuals to bear arms -- something to which the U.S. Supreme Court has never agreed. And, curiously, in pursuit of a radical assertion of that "right," the folks behind this new Minnesota law trample on other rights.
Take private property rights, for example. That's something most supporters of gun rights typically feel passionate about. But this gun law prohibits the owners of a rental property, for example, from denying tenants and guests the right to carry pistols. The tenant's statutory gun right trumps the owner's constitutional property rights.
Then there are churches, which have a passel of problems with this new law. Churches are sanctuaries, places of worship, employers and, often, landlords. Many church leaders and members believe as a matter of faith that guns have no place in a church, and they also don't want signs plastered on their doors banning guns. As Bishop James Jelinek of the Episcopal Church observed, "The front door of an Episcopal Church has special meaning. Many front doors are painted red, a color which invokes the blood of Christ and signals a 'sanctuary.' "
The churches argue, and are going to court to prove, that their First Amendment rights to freedom of belief are greatly abridged by this law. They worry that the law prohibits them from requiring that renters ban guns from the areas of church property they use. They worry that they are unable to ban weapons from their parking lots. They worry that, as Jelinek says, "the state of Minnesota is requiring us to speak the words chosen by the state."
Given the onerous signage burden, some businesses are throwing in the towel and throwing open the doors to gun carriers. But some have begun to worry, and consult attorneys, on whether they would become liable for damage caused by a gun if they don't prohibit them. That's just one of the many tangled knots this law weaves.
That's because it is a really stupid law that rights no wrong, cures no ill. It was pushed by a crowd that trumped up a "need" for self-protection to push the fringe ideological belief that every law-abiding American has an absolute right to carry a pistol. Even if true -- and that has not been established -- the right to carry would have about as much relevance to modern life as bloodletting has to modern medicine. This has been a time-wasting debate about a bad idea.
The sooner the entire law is repealed, the better.
