Concealed carry: unconstitutional, says judge

[Dickie Flatt]

Strib story:
"Ruling in a lawsuit brought by several churches, Judge John Finley wrote in his decision that it was unconstitutional for the 2002 Legislature to bundle the conceal and carry gun language with a "totally unrelated bill relating to the Department of Natural Resources."

He said the state Constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject."

[Worst Username Ever]

1. YES!

Take that Pawlenty you prick

[Love Bug]

2. Does that mean businesses

can take the stupid "We ban guns in this establishment" signs down now?

[dflprincess]

5. Probably not

as Mike Hatch says he thinks that whatever permits have been issued are still valid. He is going to appeal the decision but I think it's something he has to do as the Attorney General. From the brief sound bite I caught of him on the evening news it sounded more like he's concerned about the "can of worms" this could open because this is not the first time something's been attached to a bill that had nothing to do with the subject of the law passed.

On the other hand, isn't this how they got the "Women's right to know" (aka "women are stupid") bill passed?

[Viking12]

3. Here's a link to the ruling

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That the plaintiffs’ (Unity Church of St. Paul et al) motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act 2002, known as Senate File 842, violates Article 4, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution because it embraces more than one subject matter is hereby GRANTED and is therefore declared unconstitutional.
2. Intervening plaintiffs Adath Jeshurun Congregation’s (Religious intervenors) motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act 2002, known of Senate File 842, violates Article 4, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution because it embraces more than one subject matter is hereby GRANTED and is therefore declared unconstitutional.
3. Intervening plaintiff The City of Minneapolis’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act 2002, known of Senate File 842, violates Article 4, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution because it embraces more than one subject matter is hereby GRANTED and is therefore declared unconstitutional.
4. The intervening plaintiff’s, People Serving People, Incorporated, et al., (Charitable agencies) motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act 2002, known of Senate File 842, violates Article 4, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution because it embraces more than one subject matter is hereby GRANTED and is therefore declared unconstitutional.
5. The defendant State of Minnesota’s motion for partial summary judgment is hereby DENIED in all respects.
6. Judgment is GRANTED plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs against defendant finding that the part of SF842 (2003) that amends M.S.A. 624.714 was enacted in violation of Minnesota Constitution Article 45, Section 17 and the defendants, their employees, and agents are permanently enjoined and prohibited from taking any action to enforce the unconstitutional provisions of the Act which is hereby severed from the other part of SF842.
7. That all parties shall pay their own attorney’s fees.
8. The attached Memorandum is made a part of this Order pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 52.02.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:



_____________________________
John T. Finley
Judge of District Court

Dated this _____ day of July, 2004.




http://www.ramsey.courts.state.mn.us/Word_docs/UnityvState/UnityvState2.doc

[no name no slogan]

4. Dayam

Now how am I sposed te shoot up my brudder-in-law's car when he drives it into my flower bed, after we both been drinkin' all mornin'?

[kikiek]

6. Aww memories..