Posted on 07/18/2004 8:23:17 AM PDT by jdege
Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune
July 18, 2004
[...]
As a majority of states, prodded by lobbying from the National Rifle Association, began to liberalize their handgun laws in the 1990s, the Minnesota Legislature remained locked over the effects of such a change.
Gun-rights proponents argued that an armed citizenry would deter crime; opponents said it would lead to indiscriminate gunplay in public. Little evidence of either outcome has emerged since the law's enactment in Minnesota.
Finley's decision focused on none of that, but rather on the constitutional consequences of the unusual parliamentary strategy that was used finally to break the legislative logjam.
By large margins, the House twice passed an NRA-backed handgun bill that failed on a tie vote in the Senate, then was denied another floor vote by Senate DFL leaders. House leaders responded by using as a vehicle a technical bill for the Department of Natural Resources that had been passed unanimously by the Senate.
First, the House attached a minor "bridge amendment" dealing with DNR-certified rifle safety training for hunters. Then came the much bigger amendment -- 26 pages of handgun policy revisions that dwarfed the original 10-page bill. With the bridge amendment in place, the move withstood a so-called germaneness challenge on the floor, a parliamentary safeguard against amendments that have nothing to do with the bill being debated.
All of this was strategy to force an up-or-down Senate vote on the measure. Under legislative rules, senators could only concur with or reject the House amendments; after seven hours of debate they voted 37 to 30 to concur. Hours later, Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the bill into law.
'Totally unrelated'
In his ruling, Finley said the handgun language is "totally unrelated" to the original bill. He also noted that the bill's official title, "an act relating to natural resources," was not changed in any of the legislative maneuvering. The reviser of statutes later changed it to "an act relating to state government regulation" without legislative approval, Finley said.
"This law is unconstitutional because it clearly violates not only the intent, but also the clear meaning" of the state Constitution's requirement of single-subject legislation, Finley wrote.
He also said that the handgun amendment was attached and approved without legislative hearings or notice to the public. As a result, he added, the "basic Minnesota value of clean government is totally frustrated when the Legislature itself clearly violates the underpinnings of such a basic conscience-guided law and constitutional provision."
[...]
Attorney General Mike Hatch has said he will appeal the ruling, beginning with seeking a stay of its effect while the appeal is pending. No motion for a stay was filed last week. Hatch spokeswoman Leslie Sandberg said Friday that it is expected this week.
In the meantime, permits issued under the law remain valid, but new ones would be subject to the more restrictive former law that gave sheriffs and police chiefs broad discretion to grant or deny them.
A case for appeal
If Hatch's lawyers need any help with the case, all they have to do is call Olson, who teaches constitutional law at Hamline University. He said that in the past 25 years the state Supreme Court has invalidated only one law based on the single-subject clause: a prevailing wage provision stuck in an education bill.
All other challenges have failed because bundling of issues is an inescapable element of legislative compromise, Olson said.
"Amendments come out of the blue all the time," he said. "Stuff gets stuck in there that nobody thinks of. There was no one in the Legislature who didn't know what that bill was or at least had the opportunity to find out."
By and large, Olson said, the high court has interpreted the single-subject clause extremely broadly to limit its intrusion on the authority of the legislative branch. In 1989, the court pronounced that no far-reaching legislative amendment would violate the Constitution "so long as a common thread connects it to the general subject of the original bill, even though the connection is a mere filament."
For Olson, the handgun law has "a logical connection" to the DNR bill's provisions on hunter safety and recognition of other states' certificates.
According to Finley, a key rationale for the single-subject clause was to prevent legislative "log-rolling," a process of putting together enough initiatives that can't pass individually but in concert can muster a majority.
With the handgun ploy, Olson said, "there was no log-rolling. The bill had support for years on its own. The only reason for it was to let democracy work on the floor of the Senate."
And, although the final bill wasn't heard in committee, he said, the policy was the subject of 10 House hearings and one in the Senate. "It was fully debated," Olson said. "There was no hiding the ball here."
Conrad deFiebre is at cdefiebre@startribune.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Bang!
And, I am sure that if this was a gun BAN law that was unconstitutional (IMHO they all are) he'd be just as vocal, right? Riiiiight.
Anyone would be tempted to shoot the cook if they smelled lutefisk cooking.
One based on FACT, the other on feeeeeeelings.
The people who filed against the CCW found a sympathetic judge who just invalidated a lot of laws that were passed in the same manner. (I'm guessing on this, but considering how his ruling reads, I think it is a safe guess)
I expect his ruling will be overturned because there is to much liberal pork that can be attacked using this ruling.
Ah, good ol' Red Star Tribune. Prodded not by their citizens, but by the NRA. How many votes does Wayne LaPierre get to cast in Minnesota?
Strange that when the anti gunners don't get their way suddenly their constitutional rights have been violated.
I didn't know that the Constitutional granted only the losers the right to feel violated. I didn't know the Constitution was only for the protection of losers.
I thought the Constitution protected winners also.
Feeling good is not a Constitutional protection. Only arguement based upon fact is a valid protection. Judges that cater to the feel gooders are useless.
Ah the old bugaboo, the NRA. The NRA got on the CHL/CCW bandwagon late, and was never really the driver. It was independent state affiliates and completely independent groups that carried the load in this effort. Especially at first, the NRA more often got in the way.
If the judge tells you that the constitution is unconstitutional, time to tune him out and be free anyway. You pass the law legislatively by voting in gun-friendly candidates, it's signed by the Executive branch, and a then is speciously set aside by a judge for some abstruse reason. We need to drive the stake into the heart of the Rat party once and for all this November.
"liberalize their handgun laws"
One of the primers of Propaganda .... Re-Define negatives into positives and positive into negative.
Take the word most commonly associated negatively against yourself, and simply use it to describe your enemy.
Like a lie repeated often enough is accepted as the truth, so can simply re-defining.
Minnesota law doesn't distinguish between open and concealed. Carrying a loaded handgun "on or about your person or clothing" is illegal, unless you have a permit or fall under one of the other exceptions. Visible or concealed makes no difference.
The Freepers just don't understand. The Lutherans in Edina are well known by their pastors to be sinners; hence, there is considerable worry the Lutherans will shoot it out with one another in the Church parking lot. Finley is a notorious liberal with a liberal brother.
Can you imagine the outcry if the governor failed to enforce the judges wishes becasue he didn't like the process the judge took to reach his conclusion?
Sounds like the anti-gunners have only slim chances here. I wonder how many "penumbras" make up a single "filament"?
Estimates are that from 40-50 bills are passed every year that would be put at risk by this ruling.
500 since the Supreme Court decision that established the precedent that Finley pretends to be operating under.
Exactly. I expect the MN Supreme Court to ultimately reinstate the law. As long as the law is otherwise valid on its face, its none of the business of the court to certain how it was enacted. And here, not even the original trial judge could think of a valid reason the law is unconstitutional. He simply threw it out on the flimsiest of technical grounds.
NRA affiliated state associations.
NRA matching funds.
NRA Mailers.
NRA Members.
NRA political Contributions.
If it's determined that the original edict that banned carry there was attached to another piece of legislation, wouldn't that make *it* illegal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.