Posted: 7/13/2004 2:02:57 PM EDT
|
Judge Declares Gun Law Unconstitutional http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_195140925.html Jul 13, 2004 12:45 pm US/Central St. Paul (AP) Minnesota's handgun permitting law was declared unconstitutional Tuesday by a Ramsey County District judge in a lawsuit brought by several churches and other groups. Judge John Finley said the Legislature violated the state constitution last year by attaching the so-called conceal and carry bill with a "totally unrelated bill relating to the Department of Natural Resources." The state constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject. "Our state has prided itself in its openness in all areas of government. ... This basic Minnesota value is totally frustrated when the Legislature itself clearly violates the underpinnings of such a basic conscience-guided law and constitutional provision," Finley wrote in his opinion. Lawyers on both sides of the issue were scrambling Tuesday to determine the immediate impact of the ruling. "That's a real good question that I don't think anyone knows at the moment," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University Law School professor who is president of a group called Concealed Carry Reform Now. Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch said he would appeal Finley's ruling for several reasons, including the rigid application of the single-subject rule in the constitution. He said the Legislature frequently passes laws containing unrelated subjects. "We do need to get some direction there in terms of what the Legislature should go when it's debating rules and amendments," Hatch said. In terms of the gun law, Hatch said Tuesday's ruling would have little effect on handgun permits issued since the law went into effect. "We believe they are valid and will continue to be valid until they expire," he said. Otherwise the state's laws on handgun laws will essentially revert to their state before the conceal-and-carry law was passed. The top law enforcement officer in a given jurisdiction, usually a police chief or sheriff, now once again has broad discretion to deny pending applications, he said. The "no guns" signs that have sprung up around the state will be less useful, he said, but landlords and property managers might want to keep them in place. After Tuesday's ruling, property owners no longer need to post a sign to have the authority to keep guns off their property, as they did after the law was passed. "Frankly, they don't need it," Hatch said of the signs. More than 22,000 Minnesotans have received handgun permits since the law was changed just over a year ago. That's about twice as many permits as were issued the previous year, but well short of projections that as many as 90,000 permits would be issued in the first three years of the new law. The new law guaranteed a permit to most adults who receive required training, pay an application fee and pass a background check, unlike the old system in which Hatch said top cops had "unbridled discretion" to deny permits. Private building owners immediately began posting signs at public entrances banning handguns. But another provision of the law prevented private establishments from banning firearms in parking lots. The church leaders filed their lawsuit a week before the law went into effect on May 28, arguing that it often uses its parking lot and leased buildings for worship services and that the church should be allowed to prohibit guns on its property. Other congregations from different denominations across the region, as well as nonprofits and the city of Minneapolis joined the lawsuit. Filed last fall in Ramsey County District Court, the lawsuit also contended the law infringed on property rights of the church groups and the city by allowing people with guns to intrude without permission and without compensation on the property owners. And the church groups say the law violates their guarantees of religious freedom. Olson said he wasn't surprised by the ruling, but expected the state Court of Appeals might issue a stay in the case, meaning the new law would stay in place while the ruling is appealed. "This case was destined for the Minnesota Supreme Court from the beginning," Olson said. "The faster it gets there, the better." |
|
Heh... Now the churches can no longer ban guns... It wasn't a provision before, so it isn't now.. same for all those folks that have signs up... they don't mean a thing... No restriction that was in the law that just went into limbo need be followed... and with the previous law... there were essentially no restrictions. All that said... I would advise exercising common sense. There isn't a need at this point to start antagonizing the anti's...This will get cleared up in the courts soon enough. |
|
Death- I spoke to Hennepin S.O. today. They said they are still taking and will process applicaitns until their lawyers tell them otherwise. The did caution, however, that your $100 applicatoin fee will not be refunded if they start the background check and are told they must stop issuing permits. As far as current permit holders, the S.O. said that they will honor all permits unitl Mike Hatch (the liberal AG says otherwise). |
Guy... relax.... This will be a year or two inthe courts.. Ummm the WWWD crew will shut thier mouths as soon as the see what this can of worms opens. Think.. breathe.. hold a sight picture. This advice is as valid as ever. |
|
I thought the church grounds belong to the congregation, and if that is so some of the people carrying are also owners of the property...... I am beginning to think that if the Church is going to get involved in State, Federal, and local mattters, maybe their tax exemption should be cancelled and they start paying property taxes like everyone else.......... who are paying the fees by this attorney who is a big time lawyer?..........someone in the congregation who carries should start raising hell...... |
Exactly what I was thinking. Is this really a can of worms anyone wants to open? Has this not become a pretty typical method for getting laws passed? Like we want the legislators to get even less done. Anyway it is just a county judge, so I'm not sure what it will mean in the end. It sounds like the existing permits will continue to be valid, but new ones might be tough to obtain till this gets resolved. Permits could be obtained before, the law just changed to "shall issue". Governor Pawlenty has stated this is a "good law" and stands by it. The funny thing is, all the additional restrictions that came with the law would go away as well. Seems like a pretty stupid move to me. |
|
So was any of the '34, '86, or Iport legislation tacked on to anything else? If so, we should mess with that too. This pisses me off. Oh yeah I'm still trying to figure out how CCW when tacked on to another bill is unconstitiutional...when they are dealing with Unconstitutional claims, they better well read the Constitution first ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.... |
|
Guys this "tacked on not allowed" thing is supposedly in the MN constitution (I only say supposedly because I haven't looked it up). So no federal stuff sorry. Any stupid MN laws passed like that? Yeah QuinlanV how can a damn Ramsey county judge say anything about the state? He isn't in the Supreme Court in MN. |
Done and making it hot. |
Voted and I am still pissed off! |
Ok...new law bad so old law good? I took that to my local PD (I work uniformed security so I have my reason as the old law required-and I know some of the front desk people so they know I am just screwing with them [I was also there primarily on other business but it was the talk of the station]-and I was being somewhat curious so they asked their superviosrs.) They said no go with issuing permits under the old law. They said they were going to wait until this is figured out. (Which is fine by me. I am still pissed but I can wait it out. FedGunner was right...just need to relax ht Feels like California more and more by the minute... Calisota or Minnefornia which sounds better... |
|
There's another poll here: Faribault Courtesy of F4GIB from GlockTalk |
Hit that one as well. Thanks Rastus |
|
A new update for wright county individuals. Talked with the Sheriffs department today (08/10). And the staff there are basically asking the chief every day if any new news has been handed down on CCW yet. There not issuing, or taking any permits what so every, zero, zilch until this is figured out. My question to them was this, "So, if it takes a year to go through the courts in order for a final discission to be made, you will not be taking any apps for that year?" Her response, "Unfortunetly, it looks that way. Unless we get specific guidelines from the AG's office other wise." I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but the anti's and the churches here in Minnesota may have wanted this exact outcome, even knowing that it would probably get over turned. Basically, they have stopped the ability for all Minnesotans to get a CCW for the foreseeable future. |
|
Yep. Hope everyone that wanted their permit got it, because I don't see the appelate court or the supreme court hurrying up in this process. And if Hatch's attempts with those courts are anything like the lame performance in Finleys court, I wouldn't be surprised if the fine judges ruling is upheld. Start pressuring Pawlenty NOW to get the legislature back into a special session. This bill passed cleanly will be undefeatable by any more of these gross misuses of the judicial system and democratic process. The citizens of this state are owed at least this much. |