Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
wellsupplyguy

conceal & carry permits

12 posts in this topic

Has anyone heard were this stands in the courts?I thought that since they were back in session that something would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last I heard the State Appeals Court had it. This was maybe a month or two ago and could have moved up by now. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that the state legislature won't touch it again until it's through the courts.

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes before the Judiciary committee on April 12th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess it got upheld by the Appeals Court, according to yesterdays paper.

Supreme Court next, and I bet they will also uphold it. That may be all she wrote, because I don't think this legislature will have time to get it passed again this year and they won't have the votes to do it next year.

Just my opinion.

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a new legeslation started soon to fix the wording, but it had to play out this way to change anything.

At least that is the way it was explained to me.

Benny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt the reason for it being repealed,because it was attatched to another bill that had nothing to di with it in the first place ,and if so arent there alot of bills that have already been passed in jeporday of the same fate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad thing is I paid $125 for the course and they will probably drag it out till after the 1 years time for me. I really doubt the state will give me a refund,or a free refresher course or extend my time for that.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The origanal appeale was because the churchs didn't want the weapons even in thier parking lots, the law said you could store the weapon in your car at a place where they were not allowed.So these tree hugging gun fearing churchs thought they would get it appealed based on that alone.

But the judges are the ones who said it was attatched to a bill that was not related so they said it was an illegal

bill.

You are right in the fact that many other bills get passed this same way, it just happened to be this one that the law system decided to attack.

Always keep in mind those who fear your guns are those with the most power to control your destany.

Benny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened is the churches got their shorts in a bunch over the law. Their attorneys (Tom Lillehaug, lead) looked for anyway to defeat the law in court and the only approach they could make was to challenge the law under the provision in the Minnesota Constitution that states that all bills have to be single related issues. This provision has been loosely interpreted during the past and seldom challenged. A judge cannot rule on whether a law is constitutional until it is challenged. Thus, the concept of the law was not declared unconstitutional but the way it was passed was. This ruling will certainly go the supreme court for reasons other than conceal/carry because many bills are passed with similar amendments/addons. If the ruling stands there are many laws that are going to be challenged. Thus this ruling has far-reaching consequences and will be significant in Minnesota law for many reasons. The results of conceal/carry for the past couple of years has not proven to be the unlimited warfare that the anti's forecast. This will help in the legislative process for a new single issue bill. It has not been the legal conceal/carry individuals doing the shooting in the papers but the criminals. Contact your legislators on the new bill. It does have a great effect on how they vote. Always be respectful and remember how they voted in the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanhs for clearing up the issue,I knew it was not just the churchs idea to go after the bill the way they wanted to.

Even the last appeals court justice said it had nothing to do with the churchs claim!

Benny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then in other words if this is not overturned it will raise holy hell with alot of bills that have been passed already in this fashion , and im sure both sides of the road areor should be worried about this !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right. A favorite way to get a unpopular measure passed is to attach it to a bill that is sure to pass for other reasons. Bargaining between legislators results in the amendment or attachment being left in and in thus legislators who normally would vote against the attachment would vote for it. What is now going to happen is that they will have to be more careful on what they attach it too. Tom Lillehaug (lead attorney for the churches) was on WCCO yesterday(shelby show) and stated the supreme court warned the legislature a few years ago about this. He expected the supreme court to uphold the lower courts decisions and I believe he will be correct in this. While the conceal/carry issue was what sparked this challenge the legal issue has now taken primacy in the appeals. This legal challenge while definitely a attack on conceal/carry has taken on a much larger role due to the constitutional issue used to attack it. The fact is the "shall issue" bills had been defeated( narrowly) the previous session and the sponsors attached it to the DNR bill to get it passed. Now, with the conceal/carry provisions in for the past couple of years and the nearly total lack of adverse affects, we should stand a much better chance of getting a properly passed law on the books. To do this, contact legislators, be respectful and let our voices be heard.

By the way, Tom Lillehaug, the lead attorney for the churches, was US Attorney for Minnesota under the Clinton presidency and is a dyed in the wool Anti on this issue. He also is one smart tuff lawyer. But he will not be able to prevail if a properly passed law comes to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0