Author |
Message |
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:00 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
Pakrat wrote: The problem with this one is that since it doesn't specifically address concealed carry, then the courts will hold that it does not apply to concealed carry.
A Constitutional amendment that permits carry would be nice, but it would be a ridiculously high hurdle to expect to cross this legislative session.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:12 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
What I mean by addressing concealed carry is that it doesn't grant the state rights to regulate carry (concealed or open). But, like wisconsin, the courts will give the state those powers. Saying that it's in the state's interest to regulate it.
There is at least one state that includes, in the amendment, the state's interest in regulating concealed carry.
For this amendment to mean anything, it would have to specifically spell out what powers the citizens have and what powers the state has.
The amendment as given should give us full powers to carry, open or concealed, but it will not be "interperted" that way.
Anyone here study the effects of an amendment like this on other states and what laws interfere with that?
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
fng-dan
|
Post subject: Bill of Rights Trampled Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:29 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:13 am Posts: 5
|
All laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms are illegal. Even though there has been case law documenting otherwise, the 2nd amendment does not solely apply to the Federal government. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are pre-emptions on all laws passed by state, county, and municiple levels of government. To state that the 2nd amendment only applies to the fed is like stating that Free Speech or the 4th amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply if a local law contradicts this.
The US Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, legally trumps all other law in the United States. It is that simple. Don't be fooled into thinking that any of the restrictions are legal just because you see otherwise. The 2A isn't the only right being trampled - Private property rights continue to be erroded under eminent domain. The Fed continues to usurp power regardless of the 9th & 10th amendments.
Sorry for rambling, but this isn't that complicated. The Constitution is a wonderful document - give it a read if it has been a while. Then read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to can some insight on language and intention.
We have two choices - We can 'throw the bums out', both legislators and judges that literally commit treason by creating laws or ruling on anything contrary to the Constitution, or we can accept the consequences of civil disobedience to unjust and illegal action.
|
|
|
|
|
A Brit in MN
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:20 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:32 pm Posts: 1803 Location: Woodbury
|
Quote: 624.714 Subd. 22. Short title; construction; severability. This section may be cited as the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. 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. The provisions of this section are declared to be necessary to accomplish compelling state interests in regulation of those rights. The terms of this section must be construed according to the compelling state interest test. The invalidation of any provision of this section shall not invalidate any other provision.
How is this different from what proposed?
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:35 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
A Brit in MN wrote: How is this different from what proposed?
A constitutional amendment is a higher hurdle.
A statute can be amended by the legislature alone, (or voided subject to a judge's opinion). A constitutional amendment requires the positive vote of majority of the people voting in an election in addition to the legislature voting to put it on the ballot.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
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 4 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
|