Posted on 04/12/2005 1:36:51 PM PDT by corbie
The Minnesota Court of Appeals today upheld a lower court's ruling that struck down a law that expanded access to concealed weapons permits because the Legislature passed the law improperly. The enacting bill was tacked onto another piece of legislation to get it through the state Senate, which had resisted voting on the measure as a standalone bill....
More than 25,000 people took advantage and got a permit before Ramsey County Judge John Finley declared the law unconstitutional. His ruling suspended the new law and reverted the permitting process back to the prior law. Five-year permits issued under the 2003 law remain valid.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
And, Paul Wellstone, ah, er,........funerals.
Time to get together the list of legislation that was passed by tacking it on to other bills, and get those thrown out. Probably a bunch of pork spending, maybe even shut down Light Rail.
I'm pretty sure both sides of the aisle have passed pet projects in this manner. Time to go thermonuclear.
Bleepin' brilliant! So, now everybody who bought a gun with their Five Year Permit is a felon?
No they are still valid. From the posted article:
Five-year permits issued under the 2003 law remain valid.
I WANT TO SEE HOW THEY PLAN TO PRO-RATE OUR REFUNDS- I paid for a 5 year permit.
Looks like they were mostly interested in tweaking the noses of the Republicans, as the decision includes some rather snotty and sarcastic language about "activist judiciary" and strict construction.
It's the selective application of this principle that bothers me. Is the court going to review all the bills passed in the last 5 years to see if it passes this test? Chaos, but hey, strict constructionism and all.
come renewal time we'll all find out who to vote or not vote for as our local sheriffs.
mine approved my class 3 so I can't imagine he'd turn down
a carry permit after having one for 5 years.
MN judges will use anything they can to advance the party line, sadly. This is hardly surprising, and a new bill has NO chance of getting through right now, IMHO.
patent
Yup. We are driving from WA state to Wisconsin this summer for my wife to visit at a family reunion. I am already researching how I can bypass that state all together, yet not have to pay off the US debt in spending gas costs. We have already budgeted for the trip, so we are good to go. I used $3.50 per gallon as a gage and the miles to be driven and how much it would take, so we have the bucks, just don't want to pay any taxes in Minn. or give them a dime. So, we will drive around the state.
MPPA ping!
You get one gun for show, then bury the other one in the back yard. You will probably need it some time in the future.
as the decision includes some rather snotty and sarcastic language about "activist judiciary" and strict construction.
Yep.
And an explicit declaration that there is no relationship whatsoever between a law regarding the permitting, licensing, and training for the carrying of firearms in public for hunting and target shooting and a law regarding the permitting, licensing, and training for the carrying of firearms in public for personal protection.
OTOH, SCOMN has slapped down the Court of Appeals on gun issues a number of times.
Compare these:
C6-95-2162 Court of Appeals Minnesota v. Pendleton November 5, 1996
C6-95-2162: Supreme Court, Minnesota v. Pendleton, August 7, 1997
What the heck is language like this doing it a judicial ruling? The bolded language is very unprofessional, IMHO. It has absolutely nothing to do with the case or the logic (if you can call it that) behind the ruling.
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.