Posted on 03/15/2005 12:54:30 PM PST by jdege
HANDGUNS:The lawyer leading the fight tells opponents of the law to expect an appeals court decision by mid-April.
BY JOHN MYERS
NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Minnesotans should find out within weeks how the state's controversial concealed-carry handgun law will play out, with a decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals due by April 13.
That's what the lead attorney for opponents of the law said Saturday at a meeting of the Million Mom March anti-handgun violence group at Pilgrim Congregational Church of Christ in Duluth.
Twin Cities attorney David Lillehaug, former U.S. attorney in Minnesota, has led efforts against the state's 2003 law, representing several churches across the state.
In two suits, opponents of the law have prevailed so far.
In July, a Ramsey County Judge ruled the law unconstitutional because it passed the Legislature as an unrelated amendment to a natural resources bill. The state's Constitution says new laws must pertain to one general subject only. It's that district court decision the appellate court must decide on by April 13.
In another case against the concealed-carry law, filed in Hennepin County, judges ordered that churches and religious groups don't have to allow guns onto their property, which includes parking lots and rental property, and don't have to display signs against guns. Other property owners still must post signs if they don't want guns inside.
"This is a matter of faith and of the right of these organizations to say that peace and nonviolence is a core part of their beliefs," Lillehaug said. "I'm proud of the way these churches have stood up for their faith."
Pilgrim and Peace churches and Cathedral of Our Lady of the Rosary in Duluth are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
But Joe Olson, Hamline University professor and president of the pro-gun Conceal Carry Reform Now group, said the appeals court will uphold the constitutionality of the law. Olson said the natural resources law dealt with several licensing regulations and that handgun licensing was related.
"I think we're going to win. If we don't, it will send all kinds of Minnesota law on its head because many, many of the state's laws were passed this exact way," Olson said Saturday in a telephone interview. "If we lose, the appeals court will have set 100 years of Minnesota case law topsy-turvy. There's a huge issue of principle here of how the courts allow the Legislature to do their job."
Separate of any appeals court decision or of any state Supreme Court involvement, Olson said supporters of the concealed-carry law have the political muscle to pass the bill on its own.
"We have more than enough votes to pass it again, so we'll win either way," Olson said. He declined to say whether supporters of the law would wait for a state Supreme Court decision or simply pass a new law during the current legislative session.
Olson said efforts against the law have been led by a few "liberal, radical churches" and that the opposition "has more to do with liberal politics than it does religion."
No new concealed-carry permits have been issued since the Ramsey County judge's order in July. Permits issued beforehand are being honored until the court cases are settled, Duluth Police Chief Roger Waller said Saturday.
The 2003 concealed-carry law allowed people to obtain permits by passing a qualifications requirement, without prejudice or veto from local law enforcement officials as the previous law allowed. The law also mandated that people with valid permits be allowed into virtually all buildings and events except where expressly banned, and the law set up a rigorous process for property owners to post signs to keep gun-carrying visitors out.
Under the old law, which is back in effect pending the outcome of the lawsuits, local sheriffs and police chiefs could veto permits for no overriding reason.
That's the way local law enforcement officials want to keep it. Waller and St. Louis County Sheriff Ross Litman oppose the 2003 concealed-carry law, saying adding more guns to critical situations makes it more likely people will be killed or hurt.
"Having another person with a gun in that situation only makes it worse," Waller said at the Million Mom March event.
Litman, Waller and Duluth Mayor Herb Bergson were honored by the Million Mom March group Saturday for their efforts to reduce gun violence. Million Mom March members rang a bell 82 times Saturday, representing the 82 people who die in firearms-related violence every day in the United States.
During the 14 months that the new permits were available -- before the law was ruled unconstitutional -- about 23,000 Minnesotans obtained conceal-carry permits, Lillehaug said, about half as many as pro-gun groups predicted. In St. Louis County, about 3,000 permits were issued, Litman said.
About 12,000 permits had been issued under the old law, Olson said.
Lillehaug praised the efforts of the Duluth chapter of the Million Mom March, saying it had helped push the issue of gun violence and expose the "radical" nature of the concealed-carry law.
"Most Minnesotans didn't understand what was in this legislation... Most Minnesotans don't want this law," Lillehaug said.
Local Million Mom March members also called for Minnesota's congressional delegation to oppose legislation pending in Washington, D.C., that would give firearms manufacturers blanket immunity from lawsuits. It would be the only such industry to receive immunity from potential civil suits. U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, supports granting immunity to gunmakers. U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Chisholm, oppose the provision.
In two suits, opponents of the law have prevailed so far.
Not exactly.
In another case against the concealed-carry law, filed in Hennepin County, judges ordered that churches and religious groups don't have to allow guns onto their property, which includes parking lots and rental property, and don't have to display signs against guns.
That was a temporary order only - until the case was heard. The Hennepin case is currently on hold pending the results of the Ramsey case. It's still not been argued.
No new concealed-carry permits have been issued since the Ramsey County judge's order in July.
That's simply false - permits are being issued under the old law, as they had been before the MCPPA was passed. And truth is, fewer chiefs are abusing their discretion than had been before.
The law also mandated that people with valid permits be allowed into virtually all buildings and events except where expressly banned, and the law set up a rigorous process for property owners to post signs to keep gun-carrying visitors out.
Under the old law, there was no provision by which property owners could forbid carry on their premises.
The dozen mom march isn't gone already? Jeez. They sure recycle the exact same crap everytime. Always being proven wrong, they still go on.
they have their 'marching' orders to goose step around the
capitol
As usual, most anything gun related is wrong in the MSM
news.
thanks for posting this , JD.
Yeah, that really worked well in Wisconsin this past weekend, now didn't it?
Define critical situations, please.
Is someone in my home at 3am a critical situation? Damn well is to ME, 'cause they're not there to cook me breakfast. And, my having my gun is only going to result in the BAD GUY getting hurt.
I suppose having a fire extinquisher in the home will only lead to homeowners getting burnt, hmm?
you'll shoot your eye out
Interesting. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible that tells me that I shouldn't defend myself or my family, let alone anything about the right to bear arms.
--see what you think of 5 Matthew v.39---
"Minnesotans await decision on concealed-carry law"
Again, I'll say it!
The Minnesota Personal Protection Act (which is what this is all about), is NOT about concealed carry.
Concealed carry is the wrong subject when referring to this legislation and lawsuit.
It does not say never defend yourself or your family. I do not read it as saying "If your neighbor wants to rape your wife, do not defend her, and give him your daughter as well. If he wants to kill you, let him." Is that how you read it?
That verse has to do with a personal type of insult (slapping somebody on the right cheek, much like today spitting at somebody or giving him the finger) used in that culture, not a crime requiring a personal defense.
I see others have answered with more eloquence than I would have.
Blind trust in medicine and a pascifist? You're going to make someone a nice meal.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
---I am actually a skeptic who makes fun of literal Bible-believers-----
...who quotes scripture, and accuses other skeptics of being tin-foil-hat wearers.
Good disguise!
Kudos.
And for those who would continue to dissemble on this issue and need an illustration of how things might work out in an interface between these two things, reference what happened in Georgia this weekend with Ashley Smith and Brian Nichols.
Note that Ashley DID go ahead and call in Nichols' location when it was reasonable to do so. And she is non-committal when asked about whether he should or should not receive the death penalty.
I personally did NOT agree with Pat Robertson's support of commuting the death sentence of the Christian female convict in Texas just because she converted and became a productive member of society (in prison) after killing two people with an axe (under drug influence?) Just because someone repents and changes their behavior does NOT excuse two murders, and I suspect Ashley Smith is similarly minded. And I'll bet she believes in defending yourself to the GBI (great bodily injury) level if opportunity presents itself and if there are no other reasonable options.
At this point in time, from my OWN Bible study, I am persuaded that the Noahic Covenant, so called, included the death penalty for murder for the very reason that the Great Flood became necessary: increasing lawlessness and violence. We are seeing similar effects nowadays when "three strikes, you're out" laws are passed.
Who is the judge, Franz Kafka?
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.