I was just looking at the city council minutes and found this publication which looks to have been approved in these minutes.

http://citysearch.brooklynpark.org/dire ... 0408rm.pdf

The change appears to prohibit possession of "deadly weapons" within the city and firearms are defined as "deadly weapons".

I'm wound pretty tight about this - should I be?

ATTEST:

STEVE LAMPI, MAYOR

DEVIN MONTERO, CITY CLERK

Approved as to Form by City Attorney

Passed on First Reading: 1-18-08

Passed on Second Reading: 2-4-08

Published in Official Newspaper: 2-14-08

(Feb. 14, 2008) p1-ord 1083 City-Owned Prop

City of Brooklyn Park

(Official Publication)

The City Council Brooklyn Park has determined that pursuant to its City Charter, Ordinance #2008-1084 should be published in summary form.

SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE #2008-1084

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS

136.01, 136.02, 136.03, 136.04, 136.05, 136.06, 136.10, AND 136.11 RELATING TO WEAPONS

The City of Brooklyn Park does ordain:

Ordinance #2008-1084 amends various sections to Chapter 136, Weapons, of the City Code as follows.

# Section 136.01 - adding the definition, Facsimile Firearms

# Section 136.02 - adding the prohibition of possessing a deadly weapon in the city except possessing bows and arrows at an archery target range

# Section 136.03 - adding the prohibition of aiming a facsimile firearm at a human being, building or occupied vehicle and prohibiting aiming a firearm at a building or occupied vehicle

# Section 136.04 - adding prohibiting giving loaning or furnishing a facsimile firearm to a minor under 18 years of age

# Section 136.05 - adding prohibiting the possession of a facsimile firearm by a Minor under 18 years of age

# Section 136.06 - adding prohibiting anyone from carrying a facsimile firearm in a concealed or furtive manner

# Section 136.10 - adding prohibiting transportation of a facsimile firearm in a motor vehicle or ATV unless unloaded and contained in a gun case that is securely fastened and deleting allowing possession of a firearm at a city target range and deleting allowing bow hunting north of 85th Av. with a valid city permit

# Section 136.11 -adding the allowing of a law enforcement officer working in an Official capacity to shoot animals

This summary of Ordinance #2008-1084 has been approved by the city council on February 4, 2008. A printed copy of the full text of the ordinance is available for public inspection in the office of the city clerk.

(Feb. 14, 2008) p1-ord 1084 Weapons

City of Brooklyn Park

Brooklyn Park has NO power to regulate real firearms. None (except to adopt ordinances INDENICAL to state law but with lower penalties). Any such ordinance is "void."

Minnesota statutes provide:


Maybe the city attorney's legal advice is tainted with politics?

The regulation of "facsimiles" (what ordinary folk call "toys") started in St. Paul where the City Attorney is a former paid lobbyist for CSM (and the other guy who wrote Paymar's Gun Registration bill works).

Makes me feel like exercising my open carry rights straight into Lampi's office for a discussion.

I think I'll try a letter first.

Better idea. Just remember, when you decide to exercise rights, exactly how much justice you can afford. And how much justice you can't afford to dispense with.

I'm a law student - I can barely afford the stamp.

I like this one:



As I read this, it appears it is acceptable to aim a real firearm at a human being but one cannot aim a facsimile firearm at a human being.

Does this mean giving my nephew a cap gun six shooter makes me a law breaker? Does this make the 6 year old with a cap gun a lawbreaker?

No. State law deals with real guns. Don't forget the Minn. Stat. section 609.66, subdivision 1 misdemeanors nor the assault statute's various gross misdemeanors and felonies.

Brooklyn Park of all cities. I am willing to bet that they feel that their crime problem will be solved by this bold action that the city council has taken.

rtk

That's already in there whether right or wrong - they are just adding facsimile firearms.



This seems to be the point of the changes although I do need to get teh complete revised text. You might be able to do it with the written consent of the parent/guardian and the minor may be able to possess while accompanied by the parent/guardian.

Another thing that bugs me is that this was not on the agenda published and seems to have been pushed through under the table. I'm getting more and more frustrated with the city council the more I pay attention to what they are doing.

WOW, I need to get out more,I wasn't aware that the facsimile shootings in Brooklyn Park had gotten so far out of hand.

IANAL. Reads to me as no weapons are allowed in the city, PERIOD. This should definitely solve the crime problem.

I would like to know the costs of city staff / attorney, as well as hard costs of publishing, printing and the cost of the new signs the city will probably put up to inform us of said ordinance.

Has anyone spoken to someone that was present during discussion? What was the intent? Are they trying to ban carry in public, transporting, or just plain possessing, as at any time anywhere.

From Merriam Webster:

Using First Definition, as I am generally wont to do, it sounds like a DC ban. Looking at it from within my rural paradigm, of course.

Rich Gates is the councilman who seconded the motions. After a shooting last summer he was quoted thusly:



Poor guy is just scared is all. He just wants to protect his family, just like you and I. He just has a different way of doing so.

(now where's the damn sarcasm emoticon...)

Maybe the council should off a free carry class for it's residents to help reduce crime.