Hatch Expected to Appeal Concealed Handgun Law

KARE-11 News ^ | 7/20/2004 | Associated Press

[jdege]

Hatch Expected to Appeal Concealed Handgun Law

Attorney General Mike Hatch today is expected to appeal a judge's ruling striking down Minnesota's handgun-permitting law.

Ramsey County Judge John Finley said the Legislature violated the state Constitution last year by attaching the concealed-carry bill to what he called a "totally unrelated bill" relating to the Department of Natural Resources. The state Constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject.

Hatch says he'll appeal the ruling for several reasons, including the rigid application of the single-subject rule in the Constitution.

He says the Legislature frequently passes laws containing unrelated subjects.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[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.

[Pearls Before Swine]

This single-subject rule sounds like a good idea--if not selectively enforced, as now appears to be the case. I'm not from Minnesota, but the fact that much law gets created as buried riders and add-ons is a tremendous flaw in our legislative procedure. However, if the Constitution on this only means what it says when the leftist majority wants to call attention to it, that sucks, too. It makes me wonder if they let the bill through when they didn't have the votes to stop it knowing they had the Constitutional hook if they could find a friendly judge.

[jdege]

The MN Supreme Court has established clear requirements as to what the Single-Subject rule requires - trying to balance legislative efficiency with openess.

All of the subjects in an omnibus bill must have some common thread of connection, all must be included in the title, and all must be publicly added and subject to debate.

The MCPPA met all of these.

I'm as opposed as you to the idea of sneaking measures through on unrelated bills, unnoticed and undebated.

But the MCPPA was the single most-debated provision in the entire history of the MN legislature.

There were five separate committee hearings in the House, a two-day hearing in the Senate, five hours of debate on the House floor, eight hours of debate on the Senate floor - and that's not counting the endless hours of debate in prior years.

It wasn't a buried rider.

[newgeezer]

attaching the concealed-carry bill to what he called a "totally unrelated bill"

I really hate it when that happens. When we have to stoop to such tactics just to affirm our Second Amendment rights, it's just more evidence that we're in deep sh*t.

[jdege]

It didn't happen.

[JohnnyZ]

So is Mike Hatch planning to run for governor in 2006 or what? He's one of the few big guns the decaying DFL has these days.

[newgeezer]

All of the subjects in an omnibus bill must have some common thread of connection, ...

I certainly hope your "common thread" will not be easily broken by our opponents. If the DNR is your common thread, I'd say it's thin. Too thin? We'll see.

[jdege]

The "DNR" bill contained amendments to provisions dealing with the training, permitting, and recognition of outstate permits regarding snowmobiles, and the training, permitting, and recognition of outstate permits regarding all-terrain vehicles, and the training, certification, and recognition of outstate certification regarding boating safety, and the training, licensing, and recognition of outstate licensing regarding the operation of boats, and the training, certification, and recognition of outstate certification regarding firearms, and a number of other provisions.

What was added was language containing amendments to provisions dealing with the training, permitting, and recognition of outstate permits regarding the carry of handguns.

The characterization of the original language as dealing with the Department of Natural Resources is incorrect - there were many provisions in the original bill dealing with the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Motor Vehicles. All three departments are involved with one or more of the permits, licenses, and safety certificates dealt with in the original bill.

In other words, it was not an unrelated amendment.