Andrew Rothman
Member
Note the language throughout the story. Pay extra attention to the bold parts.
Notice anything?
When the Antis are quoted, it's "GUNS ARE EVIL....said Bob Blissninny."
When the law is defended, it's "Gus Gunsaregood argued that......"
Hmmm....
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4811060.html
Last update: June 4, 2004 at 7:15 AM
Conceal-and-carry law challenged on constitutional grounds
Paul Gustafson, Star Tribune
June 4, 2004 GUN0604
State legislators acted unconstitutionally when they passed a 2003 gun-permit law by adding it to a bill about natural resources, foes of the gun law argued in court Thursday.
Minnesota House members who sponsored the law, which makes most law-abiding citizens eligible for a permit to carry a handgun, amended it into the natural resources bill to smooth its passage by the Senate, gun-law opponents said.
In doing so, however, the gun law's supporters violated a Minnesota Constitution provision that says no law shall embrace more than one subject, attorney David Lillehaug said.
He urged Ramsey County District Judge John Finley to strike down the gun law, saying legislators "must not cut corners."
Assistant Attorney General Richard Varco Jr. argued that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied a broader rule than urged by the gun-law opponents in interpreting the single-subject clause of the state Constitution.
Finley took the case under advisement without ruling.
Groups supporting Lillehaug's argument included 33 religious organizations, several social-service groups and the city of Minneapolis.
Most of the religious groups also argued that the law unconstitutionally infringes on their property rights.
The gun law is unconstitutional because it takes away the groups' ability "to keep gun-toting people out of our parking lots" and out of properties rented by the groups, attorney John Gordon said.
Varco argued that the gun-permit law does not violate church groups' property rights , but merely states "how ... people already allowed on your land [are] to be treated."
Unity Church of St. Paul and White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church, which filed the original lawsuit, and several other religious groups also argued that the law violates their right to free exercise of religion.
Their attorney, Marshall Tanick, argued that the law "conflicts with their beliefs and ... missions."
Varco argued that the law does not violate religion rights because it does not discriminate against the religious groups because of their beliefs.
A judge in Hennepin County ruled in March that church groups who filed an earlier suit there challenging the gun law can temporarily ban guns in their parking areas and on rental properties.
The law infringed on the groups' right to free exercise of religion by asking them to tolerate actions that conflict with their religious beliefs, Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum said.
Paul Gustafson is at [email protected].
Notice anything?
When the Antis are quoted, it's "GUNS ARE EVIL....said Bob Blissninny."
When the law is defended, it's "Gus Gunsaregood argued that......"
Hmmm....
