Posted on 04/14/2005 8:20:11 AM PDT by jdege
(I'm embedding my own comments, because there' s just too much wrong with this article to deal with them at the end.)
April 14, 2005
Court rules gun law unconstitutional
By Ryan Dionne
Minnesotans can no longer carry concealed guns in the state after the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional Tuesday.
Simply false. The law that was overturned made changes to the standards by which permits were issued. It did not create the permits. With the law overturned, Minnesota reverts to the old law - the permits that are outstanding and the permits that are now being issued remain valid. (And there's nothing in the law about "concealed".)
The ruling upholds a Minnesota constitutional requirement that two unrelated laws cannot be attached and passed into law.
“The judges basically applied what the constitution says for the state of Minnesota,” said Timothy Johnson, political science professor.
The bill passed after it was added onto an unrelated Minnesota Department of Natural Resources bill.
Johnson said the tactic has been used in the past, but usually the opposition calls attention to it, and the tacked-on bill doesn’t pass.
For this bill, the opposition did bring up the constitutional violation but failed to keep the law from passing, Johnson said.
“From what I can tell, (the Republicans) had the votes in the (State) Senate to get it passed through there,” he said.
Yep. We had the votes in the Senate - the Senate leadership refused to allow a vote.
But starting Tuesday, people who conceal and carry guns in Minnesota will be doing so illegally.
Not so. People who received permits under the new law continue in force, and new permits are being issued under the old law. Holders of either type of permit can continue to carry legally. And the restrictions on where they can carry that were added in the new law in an attempt to reach a compromise have been removed.
The judges in this case followed the constitution very closely, Johnson said.
University student Nicholas Morrison is happy with the court ruling, he said.
“I think the streets are safer now that people cannot conceal and carry,” Morrison said.
He thinks only a small portion of Minnesotans want to lawfully conceal firearms, Morrison said.
I'm not sure he's thinking at all.
Morrison, who works at a restaurant that bans guns on its premises, said people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns in the first place.
He said it is ridiculous that the restaurant must put up signs on the door prohibiting guns inside.
I'm glad he thinks so, because with the law overturned, those signs no longer have legal force. There is now no way in statute by which a restaurant can forbid permit holders from carrying in the resaurant.
“(Minnesota) should never have allowed (the conceal-and-carry law) in the first place,” he said.
But Morrison said he does not think that carrying guns should be banned completely. He said it is not right to allow people to have a machine gun in the glove compartment of a car.
And this bit of hyperbole bears what relationship, exactly, to the issue under discussion?
Scott Tiedke, the University’s Hunting and Fishing club vice president, said the ruling will affect one of his friends, but it does not affect him directly.
“Overall, as a hunter, (the conceal-and-carry law) really didn’t affect us much because we’re carrying shotguns and rifles,” Tiedke said.
“You can’t really conceal and carry a rifle, anyway,” he said.
The carry permit allowed carry of shotguns and rifles in public, as well as handguns. And again, "conceal" doesn't appear anywhere in either the old law or the new.
But being unable to carry firearms does infringe on people’s rights, Tiedke said, and he said he thinks the conceal-and-carry law could pass again.
Johnson and Morrison, however, said they are not so sure the law will pass again.
There have been shall-issue laws overturned by the other states' supreme courts. In every single one of them the shall-issue bill was eventually re-passed in a form that the court could not strike down.
Truth is that there are some Republicans who are glad to see the law overturned, because it will make this an issue in the 2006 election. 2004 was the first election in many years in which the carry-bill was not an issue, and it was the first election in many years in which the Republicans didn't gain seats in the state legislature.
If the carry-bill is an issue in November, 2006, we will very likely see the Republicans take control of the Senate.
Though the appeals court ruled the law unconstitutional, the Minnesota Supreme Court could overturn the decision.
It's nice to see that the future generations of journalists are so well prepared to live up to the standards set by their predecessors.
A good thing that nobody who matters reads the Daily.
Hate to tell you, but Stallone is very, very anti-gun rights.
As I read some of the comments by the judges and "scholars", the decision hung on the Amendment not substantialy pertaining to the bills topic even though it concerned DNR gun saftey issues. That seems a pretty far reach to say they are unconnected.
I hope not, since this guy just told evey criminal element in town the establishment is unarmed.
Even more confusion about the law....
No one knows what part is unconstitutional. Is it the 'shall issue' part or is it the 'where you can carry' part or is it the 'you must post signs' part?
ping
Probably not. Most of Hollywood are hypocrites on this issue. They're like having porn stars that go around saying "women shouldn't be objectified!" and "men are pigs!"
Judge Finley's order was quite vague as to what exactly he was declaring unconstitutional.
The Appeals Court decision was much more specific - there's no confusion as to what is covered.
However let me clarify - the porn isn't what I'm equating with Concealed carry reform (e.g. porn is bad for society while concealed carry is GOOD for society) it's the hypocrisy of someone who makes money off of depicting some activity and then doesn't think anyone should think that activity is being held up as a standard for behavior.
BTW, jd, excellent commentary.
Sec. 17. LAWS TO EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
Is a CCW law part of the DNR? I dunno. From the ruling (emphasis added):
Governor Tim Pawlenty signed S.F. 842 into law the evening of April 28, 2003. State of Minnesota, Journal of the Senate, Eighty-Third Session 1534 (Apr. 29, 2003). When signed into law, S.F. 842 was divided into three articles. The PPA is Article 2. Article 1 relates to natural resources, and Article 3 relates to violent felons in possession of firearms.
Notice that they overturned Article 2, the PPA (Personal Protection Act), but left intact Article 3, a lifetime ban on violent felons from posessing firearms. That provision also violated the "one subject" rule as well, but nobody sued to have it overturned! ;^)
He said a few years ago that the government should go door-to-door and confiscate every single gun. It was covered here.
Hate to tell you, but Stallone is very, very anti-gun rights.
6 posted on 04/14/2005 8:43:53 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
And I believe that Clint Eastwood is also,Capt.
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.