Man, this stinks! I'm glad I got my permit a couple months ago, and it's good for five years.
Hopefully, we'll get this overturned or a better law this fall.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4873935.html
Minnesota's gun permit law shot down
Tony Kennedy and Randy Furst
Star Tribune
Published July 14, 2004
A Ramsey County District judge shot down Minnesota's permit-to-carry gun law Tuesday, saying that the way it was enacted in 2003 violated the state Constitution and the state's tradition of clean government.
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch said that the ruling by Judge John Finley nullifies the law that made it easier for citizens to pack heat.
But he said it doesn't invalidate the more than 25,000 permits issued since the process became less discretionary.
Hatch said he will immediately appeal Finley's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. For now, Hatch said, the state reverts to the old system where local sheriffs have discretion to issue permits to carry firearms. While it is commonly referred to as a conceal-and-carry law, the statute does not require the permit holder to conceal his or her weapon.
The 2003 change established a system requiring sheriffs to honor permit requests by all citizens 21 and over who are trained in the safe use of a pistol and who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.
It also required property owners to post "no weapons" signs, if they want to prohibit weapons on their premises, and in the event they wanted to press trespassing charges against violators.
Hatch said the signs are no longer required to pursue trespassing charges; a verbal warning is now sufficient. But he said building owners may decide to keep the signs up anyway for informational purposes.
A coalition of more than 30 churches and social service providers who sued the state of Minnesota to repeal the law rejoiced in Finley's ruling Tuesday afternoon at Unity Church Unitarian in St. Paul. Five Twin Cities law firms worked on the case without billing the group for services. The City of Minneapolis also joined in the suit against the state.
"As of today, conceal-and-carry disappeared into the Minnesota sky," said David Lillehaug, one of the coalition lawyers.
Scott Hippert of Family and Children's Service said reverting to a more restrictive permit-to-carry system makes Minnesota a safer place for kids.
But Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who signed the 2003 gun legislation into law, said, "The doomsday scenarios predicted by the opponents never materialized."
In a three-paragraph news release, Pawlenty asserted that the 2003 law brought "tougher standards" and that he wants it reinstated.
No hearings
The permit-to-carry law passed the 2003 Legislature as a rider tacked onto a noncontroversial Department of Natural Resources bill that Finley, the judge, said had nothing to do with the concealment or the carrying of weapons.
The Senate unanimously passed the DNR bill before it was amended in the House with the gun language. The House approved the amended bill 88-46 without holding committee hearings, Finley said in his ruling. When the amended bill returned to the Senate, it passed by a 37-30 vote, again without committee hearings, the judge said.
He ruled that the maneuver violated a provision in the state Constitution that requires the Legislature to approve only single-subject legislation.
"Our state has prided itself in its openness in all areas of government," Finley wrote in his opinion. "Attaching this very important and divisive amendment to a totally unrelated, noncontroversial bill without providing notice to the general public is a direct violation of the state constitution and the holdings of our highest court."
Hatch said he is eager for a state Supreme Court review of Finley's decision before the next session of the Legislature. While the plaintiffs also argued that the 2003 law infringed on religious freedom, the judge said he did not have to decide on that issue as long as he found the law unconstitutional on the single-subject issue.
"There are many bills that pass the Legislature every year that have more than one subject," Hatch said. '"It's important that we get some direction and guidance on how the court is going to be applying the interpretation."
Lawyers for the coalition of plaintiffs said the last-minute maneuvering on the permit-to-carry issue was particularly egregious.
"If you want to pass a gun law, follow the rules and don't jam it down people's throats," said John Gordon, a lawyer for Minneapolis-based Faegre & Benson.
Rep. Nora Slawik, DFL-Maplewood, an opponent of the conceal-and-carry proposal from the start, said that when the law passed as an attachment to a DNR bill, "my sense was that it didn't seem right and was clearly sloppy lawmaking. Now that's proven true."
Likely to pass again
Slawik, an assistant minority leader with the DFL caucus, said there probably are enough legislators on both sides of the aisle who favor the law that it will pass again, either in a special session or in the 2005 session. "But at least we now have a chance to fight the fight in front of the public, not just behind closed doors," she said.
In the aftermath of Tuesday's court decision, the Hennepin County Sheriffs office will handle handgun permit applications gingerly.
Sgt. Haans Vitek, said that "If someone comes in right this minute saying they want to apply, we explain to them there was a court decision today that deemed it unconstitutional. We urge them to wait to see what the legal outcome to be."
Hennepin County has issued 3,933 gun permits since the inception of the law on May 28, 2003. During the same period statewide, there were 25,633 conceal-carry permits issued, according to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The top five counties were Hennepin, St. Louis (2,068), Anoka (1,944), Ramsey (1,786) and Dakota (1,696).
Sen. Wes Skoglund, DFL-Minneapolis, hailed the decision. "It's great, it's expected, it is clear that the process was flawed. They took a bill that related to littering in state parks, and turned it into a statewide bill where anyone can carry a gun anywhere."
House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, said he was very concerned with the single-subject clause at issue in Finley's decision.
"Obviously, I am disappointed," by the court decision, Sviggum said.
But Sviggum said that critics of the bill had been proven wrong.
"The detractors of the bill said it would be the Wild, Wild West, there would be shootings at highway intersections for people who were mad drivers. That certainly did not come to pass. It was much, much less than it was portrayed to be.
"I happen to feel it was an enhancement of personal protection," he said of the bill. While some people had legitimate disagreements, he said support for the bill was bipartisan.
Sviggum said that the law struck down by Finley actually tightened regulations, requiring a gun-training component and criminal background checks, for example.
"I think from a standpoint of public safety we are in a worse position with the old law," Sviggum said.
But Lillehaug said the old system was more restrictive, allowing local sheriffs more discretion to deny an applicant a permit based on a criminal record or other reason.
Lynda Boudreau, R-Faribault, the House sponsor of the permit-to-carry amendment, said on Tuesday, "I am somewhat disappointed but not totally surprised."
Boudreau defended the law, citing stiffer requirements in the legislation which requires permit holders to be 21 rather than 18 and prohibits felons from owning or using firearms.
"Maybe the debate should really take place as to whether the law was effective or not," she said.
Hopefully, we'll get this overturned or a better law this fall.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4873935.html
Minnesota's gun permit law shot down
Tony Kennedy and Randy Furst
Star Tribune
Published July 14, 2004
A Ramsey County District judge shot down Minnesota's permit-to-carry gun law Tuesday, saying that the way it was enacted in 2003 violated the state Constitution and the state's tradition of clean government.
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch said that the ruling by Judge John Finley nullifies the law that made it easier for citizens to pack heat.
But he said it doesn't invalidate the more than 25,000 permits issued since the process became less discretionary.
Hatch said he will immediately appeal Finley's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. For now, Hatch said, the state reverts to the old system where local sheriffs have discretion to issue permits to carry firearms. While it is commonly referred to as a conceal-and-carry law, the statute does not require the permit holder to conceal his or her weapon.
The 2003 change established a system requiring sheriffs to honor permit requests by all citizens 21 and over who are trained in the safe use of a pistol and who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.
It also required property owners to post "no weapons" signs, if they want to prohibit weapons on their premises, and in the event they wanted to press trespassing charges against violators.
Hatch said the signs are no longer required to pursue trespassing charges; a verbal warning is now sufficient. But he said building owners may decide to keep the signs up anyway for informational purposes.
A coalition of more than 30 churches and social service providers who sued the state of Minnesota to repeal the law rejoiced in Finley's ruling Tuesday afternoon at Unity Church Unitarian in St. Paul. Five Twin Cities law firms worked on the case without billing the group for services. The City of Minneapolis also joined in the suit against the state.
"As of today, conceal-and-carry disappeared into the Minnesota sky," said David Lillehaug, one of the coalition lawyers.
Scott Hippert of Family and Children's Service said reverting to a more restrictive permit-to-carry system makes Minnesota a safer place for kids.
But Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who signed the 2003 gun legislation into law, said, "The doomsday scenarios predicted by the opponents never materialized."
In a three-paragraph news release, Pawlenty asserted that the 2003 law brought "tougher standards" and that he wants it reinstated.
No hearings
The permit-to-carry law passed the 2003 Legislature as a rider tacked onto a noncontroversial Department of Natural Resources bill that Finley, the judge, said had nothing to do with the concealment or the carrying of weapons.
The Senate unanimously passed the DNR bill before it was amended in the House with the gun language. The House approved the amended bill 88-46 without holding committee hearings, Finley said in his ruling. When the amended bill returned to the Senate, it passed by a 37-30 vote, again without committee hearings, the judge said.
He ruled that the maneuver violated a provision in the state Constitution that requires the Legislature to approve only single-subject legislation.
"Our state has prided itself in its openness in all areas of government," Finley wrote in his opinion. "Attaching this very important and divisive amendment to a totally unrelated, noncontroversial bill without providing notice to the general public is a direct violation of the state constitution and the holdings of our highest court."
Hatch said he is eager for a state Supreme Court review of Finley's decision before the next session of the Legislature. While the plaintiffs also argued that the 2003 law infringed on religious freedom, the judge said he did not have to decide on that issue as long as he found the law unconstitutional on the single-subject issue.
"There are many bills that pass the Legislature every year that have more than one subject," Hatch said. '"It's important that we get some direction and guidance on how the court is going to be applying the interpretation."
Lawyers for the coalition of plaintiffs said the last-minute maneuvering on the permit-to-carry issue was particularly egregious.
"If you want to pass a gun law, follow the rules and don't jam it down people's throats," said John Gordon, a lawyer for Minneapolis-based Faegre & Benson.
Rep. Nora Slawik, DFL-Maplewood, an opponent of the conceal-and-carry proposal from the start, said that when the law passed as an attachment to a DNR bill, "my sense was that it didn't seem right and was clearly sloppy lawmaking. Now that's proven true."
Likely to pass again
Slawik, an assistant minority leader with the DFL caucus, said there probably are enough legislators on both sides of the aisle who favor the law that it will pass again, either in a special session or in the 2005 session. "But at least we now have a chance to fight the fight in front of the public, not just behind closed doors," she said.
In the aftermath of Tuesday's court decision, the Hennepin County Sheriffs office will handle handgun permit applications gingerly.
Sgt. Haans Vitek, said that "If someone comes in right this minute saying they want to apply, we explain to them there was a court decision today that deemed it unconstitutional. We urge them to wait to see what the legal outcome to be."
Hennepin County has issued 3,933 gun permits since the inception of the law on May 28, 2003. During the same period statewide, there were 25,633 conceal-carry permits issued, according to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The top five counties were Hennepin, St. Louis (2,068), Anoka (1,944), Ramsey (1,786) and Dakota (1,696).
Sen. Wes Skoglund, DFL-Minneapolis, hailed the decision. "It's great, it's expected, it is clear that the process was flawed. They took a bill that related to littering in state parks, and turned it into a statewide bill where anyone can carry a gun anywhere."
House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, said he was very concerned with the single-subject clause at issue in Finley's decision.
"Obviously, I am disappointed," by the court decision, Sviggum said.
But Sviggum said that critics of the bill had been proven wrong.
"The detractors of the bill said it would be the Wild, Wild West, there would be shootings at highway intersections for people who were mad drivers. That certainly did not come to pass. It was much, much less than it was portrayed to be.
"I happen to feel it was an enhancement of personal protection," he said of the bill. While some people had legitimate disagreements, he said support for the bill was bipartisan.
Sviggum said that the law struck down by Finley actually tightened regulations, requiring a gun-training component and criminal background checks, for example.
"I think from a standpoint of public safety we are in a worse position with the old law," Sviggum said.
But Lillehaug said the old system was more restrictive, allowing local sheriffs more discretion to deny an applicant a permit based on a criminal record or other reason.
Lynda Boudreau, R-Faribault, the House sponsor of the permit-to-carry amendment, said on Tuesday, "I am somewhat disappointed but not totally surprised."
Boudreau defended the law, citing stiffer requirements in the legislation which requires permit holders to be 21 rather than 18 and prohibits felons from owning or using firearms.
"Maybe the debate should really take place as to whether the law was effective or not," she said.
Last edited:
