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.

Minn. CCW law shot down

rossowmnrossowmn Member Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭
(From Star-Tribune)
Minnesota's permit-to-carry gun law is unconstitutional, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, because of how legislators passed it: tacking it on to a natural resources bill that the court said was unrelated.

The decision upholds a ruling by Ramsey County District Judge John Finley that legislators violated the state Constitution's requirement that no law embrace more than one subject.

Even though state courts have broadly interpreted that requirement, the 2003 law's permit-to-carry provisions have no legitimate connection to other parts that address issues such as snowmobile registration and state parks funding, the Court of Appeals said.

Lawyers representing more than 30 churches and social service providers who sued the state to repeal the law applauded the ruling. The decision "is very solidly reasoned, and it affirms what every other [lower court] judge has said: The [permit] law has serious constitutional problems," said David Lillehaug, one of the attorneys for the gun law opponents.

The two-year legal battle over the permit-to-carry law could next be headed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Attorney General Mike Hatch's office issued a statement Tuesday saying Hatch will ask the state's highest court to review the case.

House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, called the Court of Appeals decision wrong. Because the natural resources part of the law included a section about firearms training and regulation, it was germane to the permit-to-carry provisions, he argued.

While in effect, the permit-to-carry law did not bear out some critics' "wild West" scenarios of gunplay in public, said Brian McClung, spokesman for Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

"If the Supreme Court doesn't overturn this decision, we'd expect the Legislature will get involved," McClung said.

Church groups that brought the legal challenges also contend that the permit-to-carry law violates their right to free exercise of religion by stopping them from keeping guns out of their parking lots and rental property, thus conflicting with their beliefs and missions.

The Court of Appeals panel of Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks, David Minge and R.A. (Jim) Randall made it clear, however, that they were ruling only on whether the law unconstitutionally embraced more than one subject.

Historically, Minnesota judges have given a liberal interpretation of the single-subject requirement to the Legislature's benefit, striking down only five laws in 148 years, Randall wrote. Nonetheless, he said, the Minnesota Supreme Court put legislators on notice in recent decisions that bills containing vastly dissimilar parts are unconstitutional.

In this case, Randall said, Judge Finley and the Appeals Court judges could find no legitimate connection between the permit-to-carry and natural resources provisions of the 2003 law.

Randall, who is known for writing tart decisions, took a swipe at those arguing that the permit-to-carry law should not fall victim to "activist" judges overstepping the will of the Legislature.

In fact, Randall said, it was the law's supporters who favored a "broad, liberal and expansive" interpretation of the Constitution in this case.
____________

Well, for the time being it's back to individual sheriffs getting to unilaterally decide who's worthy of a permit in Minnesota, based on their mood of the day and who's their buddy. That makes a lot of sense, right?[xx(]
Sign In or Register to comment.