Stop it right there. The actual battle lies here, not in the CCW bill.
Stop it right there. The actual battle lies here, not in the CCW bill.
Yep.
The law in Minnesota regarding RKBA was set by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Atkinson v. State (1980), in which the court held:
There seems little doubt that the Second Amendment would have no application to this case. The Second Amendment is a check on the powers of Congress, not the states, and it is not likely to be held applicable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 14 S.Ct. 874, 38 L.Ed. 812 (1894); Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 248 A.2d 521 (1968), appeal dismissed 394 U.S. 812, 89 S.Ct. 1486, 22 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969).
Even as against the United States, furthermore, the Second Amendment protects not an individual right but a collective right, in the people as the group, to serve as militia. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939); Junction City v. Lee, 216 Kan. 495, 532 P.2d 1292 (1975). Thus, the Second Amendment imposes no limitation on a state legislature's power to prohibit individuals from carrying deadly weapons, where the prohibition will not interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia. See Annot., 37 A.L.R.Fed. 696 (1978).
But the new law includes:
Sec. 27. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 624.714, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 22. [SHORT TITLE; CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.] This section may be cited as the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The provisions of this section are declared to be necessary to accomplish compelling state interests in regulation of those rights. The terms of this section must be construed according to the compelling state interest test. The invalidation of any provision of this section shall not invalidate any other provision.
That is, the Minnesota Legislature declares that the Second Amendentment establishes an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, that can only be regulated by measures that meet the "compelling state interest" test.
"Compelling state interest" is, of course, the highest standard used in Constitutional law.
I always wondered why the antis spent so much time screaming about irrational and hysterical things that had nothing to do with the law that was being considered, when there were so many provisions in the law that should have had them screaming.