Minnesota CCW: Conceal and carry ruled unconstitutional (Poll to Freep)

KTTC-TV ^ | July 13, 2004 | KTTC-TV

[jdege]

Conceal and carry ruled unconstitutional

KTTC-TV

July 13 - A Ramsey County judge says Minnesota's concealed-carry gun law is unconstitutional. The Olmsted County sheriff says the judge's order is creating confusion for sheriffs as far as policy and procedures go. Sheriff Steve Borchardt says it's telling sheriffs to stop issuing permits under conceal and carry but it does not specify what should be done instead.

[...]

[jdege]

Live Vote

Do you think the conceal and carry law is unconstitutional?

• Yes
• No

[jdege]

To find all articles bumped to bang_list, click below:
click here >>>	bang_list	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Bookmark the bang_list. This is not a "ping" list (no one maintains a list of interested FReepers). It is a do-it-yourself, see-what's-been-bumped-to-the list. Anyone can bump an article to the list by sending it To: *bang_list Then, interested FReepers can (bookmark and) check the list periodically to see new articles. Please do not ask me to "add you to the list." It doesn't work like that. This is better than a ping list because (1) anyone can bump an article to the list, and any interested parties can see the list of articles 24x7.

[Charlespg]

July 13 - A Ramsey County judge says Minnesota's concealed-carry gun law is unconstitutional


activist judges are whats unconstitutional

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Text of the Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[Dead Corpse]

...OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

This one has my vote. There are several "Freepers" here that feel the same way the Brady Bunch does. I call them "Freepers" as they do not conform to the Freedom standard that the rest of us Freepers do. Some people just cannot get it into their heads that the BoR, all of it, applies to the States.

Molon Labe.

[BJtheJob]

Yes 30%

No 70%

Right on, keep up the freep!

[jdege]

I was reading Smith and Zelman's "Hope", the other day.

It's a pure wish-fulfilment fantasy in which a libertarian is elected president without any of that messy nonsense about having to teach the general population that he is right. The real world doesn't work like that.

Trying to force ideas down the throat of people who don't agree with them never works out well, even if the ideas are right.

I agree that we should be allowed to carry, without permits. But the majority of this country does not.

So how do we deal with it? Shoot everyone who disagrees with us? Use the courts to force people to accept what they abhor?

No.

We teach people that we are right on the issue, and we support government provisions that will tend to teach people that we are right.

I find our current Social Security system to be abhorrent. But nobody has ever been able to create the political will to reform it, except for Ronald Reagan.

He didn't reform SS, he initiated 401K programs, which have given tens of millions of people a 20-year course in private investment accounts. We're seriously talking about reforming Social Security only because Reagan began this education.

Our welfare system was abhorrant, but nobody could get it fixed. Reagan pushed legislation that allowed the states to experiment, and some of the states tried things that actually worked to improve people's lives, instead of trapping them in an endless cycle of dependency. And after seeing what had worked in several states, we saw significant welfare reform, and will see more, because Reagan began teaching the voters that reform would improve people's lives.

Our Medicare system is abhorrant. Dubya pushed a reform bill, and included in that bill were provisions for establishing Health Savings Accounts that may, over the coming years, teach tens of millions of people the advantages of market-driven medical care.

Our gun laws are abhorrant. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need permits. But shall-issue permit laws are the mechanism by which we are teaching the country that everything they thought they knew about gun control is simply wrong.

So I very much support the shall-issue reform movement. Because it's how we get to where we should be.

[Dead Corpse]

Majority?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

If the Rights of the minority are not respected against the "wishes" of the majority, then we can have no real Rule of Law. The only correct way to do away with the RKBA would be to remove the Second from the BoR. If the so-called "majority" wants it done, they should do it the correct way.

If the rules have changed, then we need to be up front about it and start operating under the premise that we are no longer a nation that respects Laws and that has a government restricted by a Constitution.

A little culture shock from suddenly regaining the full usage of an incrementally lost Freedom will be small potatos to the anarchy of tossing out the Constitution as a whole.

[Logical me]

Sent this to thread -

Wow, are these jacka@@es going to be pi@@ed when they find that about 1.2 million retired and active cops will be allowed to carry concealed in every State in the Union. AND NO RESTRICTIONS WHERE THEY CAN CARRY.

[Dead Corpse]

Logically, any private property owner can set their own restrictions for carry on their proerty. Be it a Church, or a hardware store. That such restrictions should be posted is only common sense. Government, however, cannot legally ban them. And yes I am aware of what the judges and other gun banners have opined on the subject. They are wrong.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Any other mechanism is unlawful in a Constitutional Republic. Period.

[jdege]

So, what precisely do you intend to do?

We do not have judges who agree with you, and we will not have judges who agree with you so long as the law schools are unanimous in the opinion that you are wrong, and so long as even the pro-gun legislators think you are too extreme.

It is an interesting intellectual exercise, at best, to imagine life if the courts suddenly woke up and tossed out all the gun laws that you and I believe are unconstitutional.

But it's no more than that. It's not going to happen, unless and until we win the intellectual debate, and create an environment in which our opinion is held in much higher esteem than it is now.

The question is how will we create that environment? Armed revolution? Turtling up in back-country bunkers? Just whining on the internet about how horribly wrong things have gone?

Personally, I don't think any of that will prove productive.

Given where we were, and where we are now, and where we want to go, I believe that the shall-issue movement has proven itself to be the most effective tool for changing the debate with respect to gun control that we've ever had.

You may disagree. But for that to be any more than an ineffectual whine, you have to have an alternative you believe would be more effective.

And what, exactly, would that be?

[Dead Corpse]

It needs a good court case. One based solely on 2A grounds. Judges ruling against 2A cases should have impeachment charges filed against them.

Failing those two, lynch mobs are about all we have left. They aren't leaving us many choices in the matter.

[jdege]

Read Jeff Snyder's "The Line in the Sand".

[elbucko]

Our gun laws are abhorrent. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need permits. But shall-issue permit laws are the mechanism by which we are teaching the country that everything they thought they knew about gun control is simply wrong.

So I very much support the shall-issue reform movement. Because it's how we get to where we should be.

Darn well said! I can tell that there is a brain behind the trigger finger of the gun in your hand.

[lentulusgracchus]

It needs a good court case. One based solely on 2A grounds. Judges ruling against 2A cases should have impeachment charges filed against them.

The liberals' counterstrategy is simply to refuse to hear 2A appeals, period. To renege redress of grievances and deny justice to people accused under unconstitutional laws.

The Emerson case is a case in point. Emerson appealed before trial, but the Supreme Court remanded to the district court without ruling, ordering the district court to try the guy on the federal charges in spite of the 2A, 5A, and 14A defects in the law. What does that say?

Anyone on this thread know, btw, the ultimate disposition of Emerson? I read he was convicted under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is unconstitutional.

[Dead Corpse]

The liberals' counterstrategy is simply to refuse to hear 2A appeals, period. To renege redress of grievances and deny justice to people accused under unconstitutional laws.

Sounds like excellent grounds for impeachment. And if the legislators fail in their duty, ...

Let's hope it doesn't get there.

Soap Box.

Ballot Box.

Jury Box.

Cartridge Box.

By my guessimation, we are somewhere between the 3rd and 4th options.

[slowry]

Isn't this another example of a poll using obtuse wording? (I will guess it's unintentional this time)

I know there are some guns rights advocates who believe that conceal-carry laws are darn un-Constitutional. But that's because they are "2nd Amendment Absolutists" or whatever we want to call them.

[lentulusgracchus]

That would be correct. Unrestricted carry should be the rule.

I remember seeing, on a college bar-hopping outing one night my sophomore year, an elderly man sitting at a bar in Louisiana with a small revolver on his pants-belt by his right elbow. Open carry in a place licensed to sell alcoholic beverages in Texas 10 years ago would have gotten that same man five years on a felony count. Never mind that he might have been carrying cash, that perhaps he'd been mugged before, that for reasons that are none of my business he may have been constrained to live in the bad end of town where muggings are frequent -- the wisdom of the Texas legislature was that all who carry here, shall do five years.

Bull.

[dcnolde]

NO I don't think the conceal and carry law is unconstitutional?