Question about MN Right to Bear Arms
Author |
Message |
parap1445
|
Post subject: Question about MN Right to Bear Arms Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:28 pm |
|
Journeyman Member |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:36 pm Posts: 95 Location: SE suburbs of St Paul
|
The proposed amendment to the MN Constitution (HR 775 & SR 669) which I fully support has been tabled by the antis to make sure they never get on the ballot where the good citizens of the State could vote on them -
I mean after all, it might pass!
My question is: MN Statute 624.714 (which most people on here are quite familiar with) states (in part) in Subd. 22: "The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms" So don't we already have a statutory individual right to keep and bear arms?
I'm not a legal scholar. But is the difference that the statute could be changed, amended, or repealed whereas a Constitutional Amendment
would be much more permanent and binding?
Could someone (Kimberman?) please clarify what our rights are presently and how the Constitutional Amendment would strengthen them.
_________________ Life Member-National Rifle Association
Life Member-Ctizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Minnesota Permit to Carry holder
Member-North American Hunting Club
Veteran - US Army
|
|
|
|
|
zimme71
|
Post subject: Re: Question about MN Right to Bear Arms Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:51 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:19 pm Posts: 163 Location: Waconia
|
parap1445 wrote: The proposed amendment to the MN Constitution (HR 775 & SR 669) which I fully support has been tabled by the antis to make sure they never get on the ballot where the good citizens of the State could vote on them - I mean after all, it might pass!
My question is: MN Statute 624.714 (which most people on here are quite familiar with) states (in part) in Subd. 22: "The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms" So don't we already have a statutory individual right to keep and bear arms?
I'm not a legal scholar. But is the difference that the statute could be changed, amended, or repealed whereas a Constitutional Amendment would be much more permanent and binding?
Could someone (Kimberman?) please clarify what our rights are presently and how the Constitutional Amendment would strengthen them.
Sure sounds to me like you're onto something.....seems like the legislature has already decided that Minnesotans have the right to bear arms. Its surprising actually.....
_________________ "Saepe Expertus, Semper Fidelis, Fratres Aeterni"
(Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever)
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:08 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
My own take -- and I'm very interested in Kimberman's -- is that any political party that pushes this reaps benefits, at the cost of any other political party that doesn't.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Tabsr
|
Post subject: Move Forward Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:50 am Posts: 125
|
How do we have the bill move forward? Maybe after the SCOTUS decision.
_________________ "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:11 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
The bill won't go forward this year, because the DFL is in control, and will view this as as a "Get out the Replubican Vote" campaign.
To Amend the State Constitution there needs to be a popular vote of the people. Lots of people will come out just to vote for a 2A Amendment if that gets on the ballot. But they'll also vote for the candidates running for office and 2A supporters are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. So the DFL will stall this, even though most of them probably support a 2A Amendment.
It would be nice to have State Constitutional protection for 2A, rather than have to rely on whatever SCOTUS decides applies to States.
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer_in_Training
|
Post subject: Re: Question about MN Right to Bear Arms Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:17 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm Posts: 339 Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
|
parap1445 wrote: is the difference that the statute could be changed, amended, or repealed whereas a Constitutional Amendment would be much more permanent and binding? In a word, yes. Minnesota is one of the few states that doesn't have some form of state constitutional protection for the right to bear arms. U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amdt.: Quote: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Proposed MN Constitutional Amendment: Quote: The right of a citizen to keep, bear, and use arms for the defense and security of the person, family, or home, or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training is fundamental and shall not be infringed.
There are some obvious differences in the language of the two provisions. Amending the MN Constitution with the above language would probably make it much more difficult for the police to ban or confiscate guns at the whim of the legislature.
Someone can correct me, but I don't think MN Statute 624.714, Subd. 22 interpreting the 2nd Amdt., is going to get you very far if you're in court challenging a MN gun regulation that you've been accused of violating.
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Hughes
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:51 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm Posts: 1525 Location: Isanti, MN
|
That's my take also, MN Constitutional guarantee trumps a MN statue and then some.
_________________ “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -
WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM
|
|
|
|
|
Srigs
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:48 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am Posts: 3752 Location: East Suburbs
|
I hope it comes to pass so we can vote on it in November!
_________________ Srigs
Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
Srigs wrote: I hope it comes to pass so we can vote on it in November!
Not a chance with the DFL in control of both chambers of the Legislature.
|
|
|
|
|
parap1445
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
Journeyman Member |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:36 pm Posts: 95 Location: SE suburbs of St Paul
|
One thing we CAN vote on this November is who will be in charge of the Legislature next year
_________________ Life Member-National Rifle Association
Life Member-Ctizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Minnesota Permit to Carry holder
Member-North American Hunting Club
Veteran - US Army
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Re: Question about MN Right to Bear Arms Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:39 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
Lawyer_in_Training wrote: Proposed MN Constitutional Amendment: Quote: The right of a citizen to keep, bear, and use arms for the defense and security of the person, family, or home, or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training is fundamental and shall not be infringed. That looks like it was intentionally modeled on the first part of the RKBA provision in the Pennsylvania dissent. I think we should include the second part: Quote: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Hughes
|
Post subject: Re: Question about MN Right to Bear Arms Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:58 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm Posts: 1525 Location: Isanti, MN
|
jdege wrote: Quote: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;
Hi jdege, Please help me understand the significance of the last part in bold type.
Thanks, Scott
_________________ “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -
WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 12 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|