In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Minnesota CCW law challenged
rossowmn
Member Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭
Gun-permit law's legitimacy challenged on constitutional grounds
Paul Gustafson
Star Tribune
Published June 4, 2004
State legislators acted unconstitutionally when they passed a 2003 gun-permit law by adding it to a bill about natural resources, foes of the gun law argued in court Thursday.
Minnesota House members who sponsored the law, which makes most law-abiding citizens eligible for a permit to carry a handgun, amended it into the natural resources bill to smooth its passage by the Senate, gun-law opponents said.
In doing so, however, the gun law's supporters violated a Minnesota Constitution provision that says no law shall embrace more than one subject, attorney David Lillehaug said.
He urged Ramsey County District Judge John Finley to strike down the gun law, saying legislators "must not cut corners."
Assistant Attorney General Richard Varco Jr. argued that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied a broader rule than urged by the gun-law opponents in interpreting the single-subject clause of the state Constitution.
Finley took the case under advisement without ruling.
Groups supporting Lillehaug's argument included 33 religious organizations, several social-service groups and the city of Minneapolis.
Most of the religious groups also argued that the law unconstitutionally infringes on their property rights.
The gun law is unconstitutional because it takes away the groups' ability "to keep gun-toting people out of our parking lots" and out of properties rented by the groups, attorney John Gordon said.
Varco argued that the gun-permit law does not violate church groups' property rights, but merely states "how ... people already allowed on your land [are] to be treated."
Unity Church of St. Paul and White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church, which filed the original lawsuit, and several other religious groups also argued that the law violates their right to free exercise of religion.
Their attorney, Marshall Tanick, argued that the law "conflicts with their beliefs and ... missions."
Varco argued that the law does not violate religion rights because it does not discriminate against the religious groups because of their beliefs.
A judge in Hennepin County ruled in March that church groups who filed an earlier suit there challenging the gun law can temporarily ban guns in their parking areas and on rental properties.
The law infringed on the groups' right to free exercise of religion by asking them to tolerate actions that conflict with their religious beliefs, Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum said.
Paul Gustafson
Star Tribune
Published June 4, 2004
State legislators acted unconstitutionally when they passed a 2003 gun-permit law by adding it to a bill about natural resources, foes of the gun law argued in court Thursday.
Minnesota House members who sponsored the law, which makes most law-abiding citizens eligible for a permit to carry a handgun, amended it into the natural resources bill to smooth its passage by the Senate, gun-law opponents said.
In doing so, however, the gun law's supporters violated a Minnesota Constitution provision that says no law shall embrace more than one subject, attorney David Lillehaug said.
He urged Ramsey County District Judge John Finley to strike down the gun law, saying legislators "must not cut corners."
Assistant Attorney General Richard Varco Jr. argued that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied a broader rule than urged by the gun-law opponents in interpreting the single-subject clause of the state Constitution.
Finley took the case under advisement without ruling.
Groups supporting Lillehaug's argument included 33 religious organizations, several social-service groups and the city of Minneapolis.
Most of the religious groups also argued that the law unconstitutionally infringes on their property rights.
The gun law is unconstitutional because it takes away the groups' ability "to keep gun-toting people out of our parking lots" and out of properties rented by the groups, attorney John Gordon said.
Varco argued that the gun-permit law does not violate church groups' property rights, but merely states "how ... people already allowed on your land [are] to be treated."
Unity Church of St. Paul and White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church, which filed the original lawsuit, and several other religious groups also argued that the law violates their right to free exercise of religion.
Their attorney, Marshall Tanick, argued that the law "conflicts with their beliefs and ... missions."
Varco argued that the law does not violate religion rights because it does not discriminate against the religious groups because of their beliefs.
A judge in Hennepin County ruled in March that church groups who filed an earlier suit there challenging the gun law can temporarily ban guns in their parking areas and on rental properties.
The law infringed on the groups' right to free exercise of religion by asking them to tolerate actions that conflict with their religious beliefs, Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum said.
Comments
I find this to be an intriguing statement by a judge. So if I disagree with homosexuality on religious grounds, can I ban all homosexuals from my church? What about blacks? What if I believe they are the Sons of Cane, therefore can I ban them from my church and its property?
What is the extent of this infringement power? If my religion does not tolerate abortion, then do I have the right to shut down an abortion clinic in another city? Maybe even another state?
What if my religion believes that Judgement Day is coming and that everyone should be armed at all times? That is apparently in direct conflict with the beliefs of the church mentioned in this article. Who wins in that case?
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
The law infringed on the groups' right to free exercise of religion by asking them to tolerate actions that conflict with their religious beliefs, Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum said.
I find this to be an intriguing statement by a judge. So if I disagree with homosexuality on religious grounds, can I ban all homosexuals from my church? What about blacks? What if I believe they are the Sons of Cane, therefore can I ban them from my church and its property?
What is the extent of this infringement power? If my religion does not tolerate abortion, then do I have the right to shut down an abortion clinic in another city? Maybe even another state?
What if my religion believes that Judgement Day is coming and that everyone should be armed at all times? That is apparently in direct conflict with the beliefs of the church mentioned in this article. Who wins in that case?
Apparently the ruling is about what goes in IN YOUR CHURCH. So, if you want no gays IN YOUR CHURCH, you can have it. Or blacks. If your religion is opposed to abortion, you can prohibit it, IN YOUR CHRUCH. Weapons, too, as long as it's on church property. Once you step off church grounds, normal rules seem to then apply.
Since I have been studying Greek lately, I'll give a more direct translation of the Thermopylae Monument: "Stranger, tell the Lakedaemonians that in agreement with their customs, we lie here."
But I did find a pretty interesting article about sexual discrimination in churches: http://bostonreview.net/BR23.5/Sunstein.html
According to current legal precedent, churches can basically discriminate against anyone they want. Although I think it would be an interesting legal exercise for someone to advertise a "white-only" church and see how long it would take before a law suit was filed. The ACLU might implode before it could decide which side of that case to take.
Unfortunately, these First Amendment rights always seem to trump the Second Amendment rights. I guess the moral of the story is to find a pro-gun church.
;-)
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040605/ap_on_re_us/catholic_university_naacp_7
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Since I have been studying Greek lately, I'll give a more direct translation of the Thermopylae Monument: "Stranger, tell the Lakedaemonians that in agreement with their customs, we lie here."
The Boy Scouts, a private organization, just barely won a Supreme Court decision (5-4 split) that allowed them to bar gays from their organization. Initially the New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled against them. I imagine it won't be too long before this ruling is overturned by a more liberal Supreme Court. Times are changing.
Again, I basically agree with you, I think a private individual or organization should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they want. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendement will always take the back seat. These days there are very few public places that I am allowed to carry a firearm. It probably won't be long before I can't carry a firearm anywhere.
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi