Minnesota CCW: For a better permit-to-carry law

Minneapolis Star-Tribune ^ | July 18, 2004 | Tim Penny

[jdege]

Tim Penny: For a better permit-to-carry law

Tim Penny
July 18, 2004

Last week's court decision to strike down the "conceal carry" gun law was based on Article 4 Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution.

[...]

With the permit-to-carry issue back in the headlines, Minnesotans have another chance to debate the merits of this legislation. If the court ruling is upheld, the issue will be back before the Legislature in January. Between now and then, legislative candidates should be asked how they intend to vote on this matter -- and whether they'll support reasonable changes in this legislation.

[...]

Still, the law remains in need of a few "tweaks." Sensible Minnesotans -- led by respected leaders like Mondale and Carlson -- must reveal conceal for what it is: a badly written law.

Here are some changes that make common sense.

• First, no guns should be permitted in churches or government buildings. Period. There should be no requirement on the part of these entities to post signs. As part of the privilege of holding a carry permit, gun owners should be required to know where they can and cannot carry guns. Minnesota is out of step with many other states in this regard. Most states with such statutes wisely prohibit guns in government buildings. Several states also stipulate that churches are off-limits for gun carriers. By adopting this reasonable amendment to the law, Minnesota would join the sensible mainstream on this issue.

• Second, no guns should be allowed in on-sale liquor establishments. Even in Texas, where some jokingly say it is required that you own a gun, a provision in its "conceal carry" statute forbids guns in any place of business that "derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages."

  In fact, most states with permit-to-carry laws are like Texas in that they restrict guns in bars and other drinking establishments. There is no dispute in our society that "drinking and driving" do not mix. Should there be any doubt that "drinking and guns" is a bad mixture?

[...]

The proponents of Minnesota's "permit-to-carry" law, including Pawlenty, often insist that we are simply following the lead of 33 other states with similar laws already on the books.

But that sound bite is meant to mislead. In truth, Minnesota's "carry" law has flaws that do not exist elsewhere. By "tweaking" the law in a few areas, Minnesota will bring its law into closer conformance with similar -- though better-crafted -- laws now in effect in other states.

Tim Penny, a former member of the U.S. House, is a senior fellow at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

[jdege]

Why wasn't Tim Penny proposing these "compromises" back when the bill was being argued?

Then, he was absolutely opposed to the idea.

Now, he says it's perfectly reasonable, if we add a few "tweaks".

The Metrocrats could have had those tweaks, if they'd proposed them three years ago, as an offered compromise in exchange for dropping their opposition to the bill.

Instead they insisted on absolute opposition, which meant we couldn't pass the bill until we had sufficient support to pass it despite them.

It was their choice. We didn't force them.

Meanwhile, I will not accept a ban on carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm not drinking, it should matter a jot that someone at the next table is having a glass of wine with his dinner.

I will not accept a ban on carry in churches. For the government to forbid guns in churches is a violation of the free exercise clause. Whether guns are forbidden, allowed, or mandated in a church should be up to that church. Not up to the State.

And I will accept restrictions on public property only in places where there is controlled access, secure storage, and armed security present. Jails? Courtrooms? Fine. Libraries and public parks? Not a chance.

[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.

[Dead Corpse]

...and whether they'll support reasonable changes in this legislation.

The only changes that would be reasonable would be to institute Vermont/Alaska style carry laws. Re-affirm that the 2nd in the US Constitution applies to citizens in Minnesota and let people defend themselves however they may.

Or do pinheads like Penny relish the idea of the appellation "Murderapolis" being used to describe the Twin Cities again?

[jdege]

Vermont carry? Maybe, someday.

But if we're to reconsider the bill, for right now I'd be happy with just removing the ban on carry in the schools, and removing the discretion from the reciprocity language.

[Dead Corpse]

Have you read the threads about open carry in Virginia? Good news there.

While an incremental approach may be seen as necessary for appeasement of alarmists in the media and in our legislatures, "We the People" are just not as paniky and stupid as pundits and pols make us out to be. The complete lack of Wild West style shoot outs pretty much gives the lie to those notions.

Will there be a few nervous nellies hitting 911 on their speed dials? Sure. That'll fade as people get used to seeing people with guns again. I'm still hoping to revive them as a fashion trend. ;-)

[jdege]

We need to re-educate the public on the responsibilities of a free citizenry.

One step at a time.

But I look forward to the day when a "Barbeque Gun" is an essential fashion accessory to formal wear.

[Rakkasan1]

there's a reason why these former pols the Star and Sickle
always print are FORMER pols.
he's a girly man.

[Mulder]

The Metrocrats could have had those tweaks, if they'd proposed them three years ago, as an offered compromise in exchange for dropping their opposition to the bill.

Exactly. Penny and a few other RATS are smart enough to realize that they'll lose at the ballot box if they continue to oppose the RKBA.

So instead of outright opposing CCW bills, they try to put their scent on it, while making it more confusing and more cumbersome for Joe Q. Citizen to follow.

Screw them.

A tyrannical judge has just infringed upon your Rights as a Free man. As such, you guys are entitled to a better bill, as well as compensation. Here are a few suggestions in addition to yours:

-- Recognition of a CCW license from any other state

-- Provision allowing a CCW holder to sue any agents of the state that harass them for carrying. Make it a $100,000 fine for the agency, and half that for the offending agent. Have 'fast track' provisions that allow them to bring it to court and collect ASAP and with as a little trouble as possible.

-- Cut the permit fee in half for inconveincing those that had planned to apply for one, but cannot any longer.

Instead of allowing the statist gun-grabbers to vote "yes" on another CCW bill, shove it down their throats. You don't need their votes to pass a new bill (like you did a few years ago). To hell with them.

Take the political offense and make them rue the day they ever attempting to infringe upon the Rights of Free men and women.