Posted on 8/23/2004, 6:07:49 PM by jdege
BY MARIE McCAIN
Pioneer Press
The Ramsey County District judge who declared Minnesota's "conceal and carry" law as unconstitutional has rejected a request to leave the law in place while his ruling is appealed.
In an order filed today, Judge John T. Finley denied the request made by lawyers with the state attorney general's office.
Finley's ruling means those who seek a permit to carry a handgun will have to do so under the requirements of Minnesota's old permit law, which gives county sheriff's and chiefs of police greater discretion when deciding who gets a permit.
Monday's action is the latest in a series of rulings on the controversial law.
Last week, the state Supreme Court rejected a request from the state attorney general's office to consider the case early.
The state attorney general's office asked for the direct review as part of its appeals filed after the July 13 ruling by Finley. The Minnesota Court of Appeals will hear the case, but arguments may not take place until later this year.
More than 30 religious and charitable organizations, along with the city of Minneapolis, sued the state to have the controversial law struck down. They argued that it infringed on their rights to ban guns from their properties.
They also contended that the Legislature approved the measure in an improper way.
Finley agreed that the passage of the law violated the single-subject rule of the state constitution. The measure had been attached to a technical bill benefiting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
After the concealed carry law was overturned, Minnesota's old handgun permit law went back into effect.
In asking Finley to put aside his ruling while it's on appeal, the state argued the law provided money that helped law enforcement agencies offset the cost of background checks for permit seekers. The state also argued that it shortened the amount of time — from 30 days to 21 days — officials have to either deny or grant a permit.
Opponents of the law believe the former statute doesn't inhibit their property rights or religious freedoms. They also argued that the new law did little to prohibit permits for those who should not carry a handgun.
Doesn't matter. The only thing that ever matters is the opinion of one judge. Millions of people who vote, entire legislatures who debate and vote, elected governors who sign - all irrelevant. What matters is...one judge, who wakes up, rolls over, and screams: "Un-Const-tee-Too-shunal!!!".
Democracy at its finest.
RECALL THE BASTARD!
DEMAND HIS RESIGNATION!
HOUND THE CITY/STATE OFFICIALS UNTIL THE JUDGE STEPS DOWN!
So this means that those people who got permits under the new law can now carry in churches. It only applies to those applying for new permits.
He's not up for re-election for four years.
But we'll remember.
All of the permits issued under the old law have expired.
The AG has stated that it is his opinion that the new permits remain valid until their expiration dates under the terms of the old law.
(Which means that carrying in schools and day cares and carrying under the influence is legal, for the time being.)
The legislature screwed up when they double-teamed this bill. They violated their oaths to the Constitution of their state. It's not the judge's fault.
Well if old law negates new law then let the 2nd amendment stand as it was intended. No need for any damn permit with his reasoning......:o)
Good ideas. Better yet, impeach now.
Subtitled "Be careful what you wish for, gunophobics"
This is nothing new; there are any number of bills that deal with more than one subject in this state. This was shopped around by trial lawyers until they found a judge who would rule in their favor. A ruling like this just opens Pandora's box, because there are a lot of crime/sentencing laws on the books that were passed the same way. This will eventually be overturned for the same reason. The judge in this case has been censured in the past for his behavior also...
Sort of like the Senate clerk saying that because the pay witholding requirement has never been enforced before, she's not going to enforce it against Kerry now.
Why in the world are there any number of bills that deal with more than one subject if that's against the requirements of the Constitution?
"controversial law"
With the MSM why is any pro gun law always "controversial"?
"The legislature screwed up when they double-teamed this bill. They violated their oaths to the Constitution of their state. It's not the judge's fault."
could you re-post an earlier post you had showing the germainess in the actual wording of the DNR bill...
to say it wasn't germane when it's right there in English...silly.
It doesn't have to be VERY germane, just a thread of it..
Because the Democrats have put a lot of effort into stretching the definition of "one subject" until it's become quite flexible.
In this case the CC bill passed the House easily and would probably have passed the Senate, but a small block of Democrats were successfully keeping it from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. So the Republicans attached it as an amendment to a DNR funding bill that contained a lot of other firearms training and licensing provisions, thus meeting the "one subject" test and permitting it to come to the Senate floor for a vote, where it passed easily.
The problem here is that anti-gun activists indulged in blatant judge shopping, filing the case in something like seven counties, hoping to find one liberal activist judge who would rule in their favor -- and they did. That Finley refused to stay his own ruling is not surprising; he's been in legal and ethical trouble before, but has always managed to brazen his way out of it. He's a dedicated and shameless Democratic party hack.
So, the fight goes on...
Thanks for the clarification!
Yep.
The same plaintiffs had already filed suit over the same issue in Hennepin County. And got a judge they didn't like.
So they filed suit in Ramsey County, and got Finley.
When the AG made a motion to have the case moved to Hennepin County and consolidated with the earlier case, Finley denied the motion.
He wanted this case.
The lawyers tell me it's near-certain that the constitutionality issue will be rejected on appeal. And that it's more likely than not that the case will be returned to Hennepin County, rather than to Finley, for further consideration.
Meanwhile, even the anti-gun legislators are seriously peeved at this ruling.
I'll confess to having a sneaking desire to have this issue stay in the public eye -- and continue to piss off gun owners -- until the first week of November. What a pity no state Senators are up for re-election this year.
All this ruling does is let us ignore all those "NO GUNS ALLOWED" signes. You got your permit, you can carry your gun anywhere. Thanks judge.
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.