Posted on 01/13/2005 6:52:28 AM PST by Rakkasan1
Minnesota's embattled conceal-and-carry handgun law is back in the legal crosshairs.
Lawyers today likely won't be debating the merits of the law; the argument will center on how it came to pass in the Legislature. In the meantime, law enforcement is left to figure out what to do with Minnesotans seeking a permit to carry a concealed gun.
The state Court of Appeals will hear arguments today on the controversial "Personal Protection Act" six months after a Ramsey County District Court judge shot down the 2003 gun law. Lawmakers violated the state Constitution by attaching it to an unrelated natural resources bill, Judge John Finley ruled.
Legislators didn't sneak the gun law past voters, state Attorney General Mike Hatch will try to persuade the three-justice panel. Media lavished attention on the conceal-and-carry bill, and it "was more heavily debated than virtually any other legislative measure in 2003," according to the attorney general's brief.
Hatch also will argue the gun law and the accompanying natural resources bill that tweaked rules on park fees, fish house licenses, snowmobiling and hunter firearms safety were linked. The thread: All fall under the umbrella of government regulation of potentially hazardous devices and the persons who use them.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Minnesota Supreme Court in a previous decision (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C3-01-329 see link below) has already stated that in order for a piece of legislation to violate the single-subject requirement of Minn. Const. art. IV, § 17 that the legislation must be wholly unrelated with a law's subject. The common thread which runs through the various sections" need only be a "mere filament" and thus would be upheld.
"The purpose of preventing logrolling (the single-subject requirement) is to preclude unrelated subjects from appearing in a popular bill, not to eliminate unpopular provisions in a bill that genuinely encompasses one general subject."
"The fact that a controversial bill could (may) not pass as a stand-alone bill, while not irrelevant, is not conclusive proof of impermissible logrolling."
"The practice of bundling controversial, volatile provisions with germane and less-controversial laws is not impermissible logrolling. Rather, it is the nature of the democratic process where you have major and minor political parties, partisan politics, and an independent executive branch."
The Court correctly reasoned that without the 'mere filament' test existing, most Omnibus bills would be in violation of the single-subject rule.
In the ruling, they have stated that if a common thread, (even a mere filament) exists and it's in the Bill's title, it probably would stand the test of the single-subject requirement and would be upheld.
The Plaintiff's claim, among other things, is that it was attached to a DNR bill. That is incorrect. The first line of the bill reads: A bill for an act relating to state government regulation. True, there are DNR regulations, but it also includes off-highway vehical regulation, but also modification of certain license regulations.primarly Regulation regarding hunting firearm regulations issued by the DNR The firearm regulation changes (the common thread), continue from DNR regulations for hunting firearms right onto gun regulations changes for other firearms, specifically new CCW regulations.
The firearm REGULATION is the common thread in this bill.
The lawsuit also claimed it was a last minute amendment that many lawmakers didn't even read and was snuck in at the last minute.. This is also not true. In fact, if you read the Legislator's Journal, this Bill enjoyed a very LONG and LIVELY debate, and was aired on CSPAN live before it was passed. The CCW had also previously made it way past multiple committees.
Read the2001 MN Court's decision and SF842 in it's entirety, and you will see that this Bill is NOT in violation of the Minnesota Constitution, but is a victim of selective political and Judicial meddling. It's truly ironic that Judge Finley used the words 'unconstitutional' to strike down a state law that only re-affirms the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the Right to Bear Arms.
(researched by Doug Anderson)
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?session=ls83 ion=latest&number=SF842&session_number=0&session_year=2003> &version=latest&number=SF842&session_number=0&session_year=2003
The Minnesota court of Appeals decision referenced:
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C3-01-329
Defenders of Wildlife; Sierra Club, North Star Chapter; Humane Society of the United States; Friends of Animals and Their Environment; Help Our Wolves Live; Minnesota Wolf Alliance; and the Animal Protection Institute, Appellants,
vs.
Jesse Ventura, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Filed July 31, 2001
Affirmed
Randall, Judge
Concurring specially, Harten, Judge
Ramsey County District Court
File No. C600007325
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0107/c301329.htm
Number One NEED in America today: STOP Judges from INTERPETING the LAW according to their tiny moldy brains.
bang
I hope no one tells any lawyer jokes.
I plan on it, but the ones I know who are there on the side of freedom won't mind.
They have something libs don't- a sense of humor.
Your comment brings something to mind. Why is it that liberals cannot stand to take a joke and always seem to take it to heart? Is it a lack of self esteem?
no, they have too much self esteem. They are souless, witless, clueless, worryworts who think if they smile their
face will break.
speaking of lawyer jokes...
District Attorney Held on Drug Charges
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs13.7jan13,1,2558422.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
Liberal uasually have lots of self esteem. It's SELF RESPECT they are usually in short supply of, and for good reason.
Self respect is earned, and they haven't a clue how to earn it. They're stuck with something someone gives them, and that's self esteem.
Anything I can do from down here? I'm in the process of moving back to MN.
do a web search for CCRN or GOCRA and join.
*shrug* The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is all I need.
Expenditure requires the wife's approval. ;-) Shouldn't be a problem though. May even get the In-Laws in on it.
There are about a thousand legislators and law enforcement departments that don't agree with us. For one reason or another. It is them that we have to really worry about.
You are such an ignoramus. You must remember the first principle of modern constitutional law. If an act of the legislature advances the agenda of (il)liberals, that is, the enemies of freedom, it is constitutional. If it would retard that agenda, it is unconstitutional. The nit-picky rules of consitutions, both state and federal, apply only when the court cannot discern an effect one way or another on the (il)liberal, that is, anti-freedom, agenda.
Do I have to explain everything?
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.