Notice that neither bill mentions "firearms" or "carry." You have to understand the law of burglary to realize the evil implications.

HF184 and SF197

These bills have terrible implications for carry permit holders. Intentionally so, I'm sure since NO other state extends the definition of burglary in this manner.

Licensed carry in a school w/o permission is a misdemeanor (a "crime"). 609.66, subd. 1d

Licensed carry in a religious property, that is posted somehow, is trespass [under the recent ECLC court decision] and a misdemeanor (a "crime"). 609.605

Licensed carry in a government building is ???

So now we make these misdemeants into FELONS ???
With lifetime loss a firearms rights, etc.

Somebody on the anti-gun side is VERY smart!

Thanks for the heads up. I have had success with emailing my representative in the past, so I sent a message to my rep and senator. At this time, SF 197 is apparantly too new to get on the list of bills to watch but I'll keep trying to get it on my list. Also, I happened to notice that Leon Lillie(one of the reps at the townhall meeting last Saturday) is a co-sponsor of HF184.

I just noticed that Steve Smith of dist. 33a is listed as a co-author of HF184. He's getting a very firm call from a supporter tomorrow asking if he is aware of the implications of this bill and how he plans on now changing his direction on this bill.

MN Rep. Steve Smith (R) 33A * 253 State Office Building100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155(651) 296-9188

I'm calling Gen Olson and giving her a heads up on this too.

MN Senate, Gen Olson (R) 33
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. State Office Building, Room 119St. Paul, MN 55155-1206651.296.1282
Email Address: sen.gen.olson@senate.mn

Someone care to explain this. I don't quite understand.

An example. Carry by a permit holder in a school building without special permission is a misdemeanor. Entering the school building with the intent to carry therein, is burglary and a felony. Whoops!

TRADITIONAL burglary is a varient of the "castle doctrine" because it made breaking and entering another's dwelling in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony thereon into a separate felony even if the intended offense is never committed. Both the predicate crime and the entry crime were felonies.

Minnesota, unlike most states, has eliminated all the qualifiers that restricted burglary to seriously bad actors but limited the coverage (like almost all states) to dwellings. Entering to write a bad check (of misdemoner amount) suddenly becomes a felony.

I am sorry, but not a policy wonk, I do not get the details here.

What does the proposed law do? how does it affect the MPPA?

I know that I will probably get this wrong, but here goes:

Entering a school carrying is now a misdemeanor. Under the proposed legislation, entering a school with the intent to carry will be a felony. If I'm right, YOWZA!!!!

Entering a business with the intent to commit a misdemeanor (small bad check or carrying a weapon when the business is posted) will be a felony.

Do I have the essence of it? If I do, does this have a chance of being overturned as being unconstitutional? On the face of it (to a layperson), it would seem so.

I think that you captured the substanace of it......good job!

Another of those evil "assault-bills" ..............
they should be banned for sake of the children.............Mine!


.

WOW! That better not fly. I will contact my government officials about this. Is there any other details or dates with this. when will it be up for vote?

If you go to the respective pages for the House and Senate, then type in the bill number, you can see at what stage in the process the bill is at and it is also possible to add the bill to your list of bills to watch.

I took some wording from you guys (hopefully, you don't mind) and wrote my representative (a former co-worker):


Hi Carolyn,

How is the new office? I do need to get down and see you some time soon. I'll look at our schedule for release days and see what I can do.

In doing some reading over the weekend, I came across a bill currently in the House which gives me some cause for concern: HF 184, a bill to modify the definition of "burglary" in state law.

While, on the surface, the bill seems to merely raise the penalties for burglars, as in the following excerpt, it also would make some much greater changes that neither the authors nor the Legislature intended, I hope.

The bill reads, in part:

Subd. 2. Burglary in the second degree. Whoever enters a building without
consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and
commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits
burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:
(a) the building is a dwelling, government building, religious establishment, or school building

Again, while this sounds good, it changes a whole lot of minor crimes into felonies, including the inadvertent carry of firearms by permit holders into restricted spaces, as in these examples:

Entering a business with the intent to commit a misdemeanor (small bad check or carrying a weapon when the business is posted) will be a felony.

Carry by a permit holder in a school building without special permission is a misdemeanor. Entering the school building with the intent to carry therein, is burglary and a felony.

Traditionally, burglary is a variant of the "castle doctrine" because it made breaking and entering another's dwelling in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony thereon into a separate felony even if the intended offense is never committed. Both the predicate crime and the entry crime were felonies.

Minnesota, unlike most states, has eliminated all the qualifiers that restricted burglary to seriously bad actors but limited the coverage (like almost all states) to dwellings. Entering to write a bad check (of misdemoner amount) suddenly becomes a felony.

While we can both see the necessity of ensuring the safety of all Minnesotans, surely we do not wish a first time, minor offender writing a bad check or inadvertently carrying a firearm into a posted business to become a felon with up to ten years in prison and $20,000 in fines. The penalty simply would not fit the crime, and this may even make the law unconstitutional.

In researching this bill, I came to the realization that many gun owners, including your constituents, view this bill as a back door means of gutting the current carry permit law without the political ramifications of trying to repeal it directly. If, indeed, that is the intent of the authors, it does not seem to be working; quite an uproar is already being raised about it.

Please consider this issue carefully. If, indeed, the definition of burglary needs to be changed, I feel we would do far better to narrowly tailor the legislation so as to avoid unintended consequences.

Yours,

Jeremiah

So a simple 'schoolyard scuffle'(Disorderly Conduct) inside the school (church, home, gov't building) just got elevated to a felony. The opposite end, is by statute at least, you virtually get carte blanche to use deadly force in your own home.

I just noticed that Smith asked to have his name stricken from the bill as an author. Good job mnglocker.

I didn't even get a chance to call him and shout in a controlled manner yet. Perhaps he reads our board?

Yes, definitely a good job, but there are still 5 state senators and 10 state reps sponsoring the bills.

For those who aren't aware of the MN legislature website, here are links to the bills:
<li>House version: HF184
<li>Senate version: SF197
To see what the bill actually says, click on Text, to see the authors of the bill or where it is in the legislative process, click on Status.