The Dumb Gun - The
The Dumb Gun - The gun control movement hasn't been able to convince the vast majority of Americans that firearms are a bad idea. Most people know that it's not the gun that causes the problem - it's the person carrying it.
It's perhaps logical, then, that since they can't convince the voter that guns themselves are the problem, they've moved on - to making the guns themselves useless.
Jacob Sullum writes in Reason about "smart guns", and New Jersey's extraordinarily-stupid move to require this new, unproven, potentially lethal technology in all guns sold in that state - technology that would make guns both unaffordable to poor people and potentially unreliable in the sort of emergencies for which law-abiding citizens buy handguns in the first place:
Revealingly, the mandate exempts police weapons, even though research on personalized firearms was initially aimed at stopping criminals from firing guns grabbed during struggles with cops. The exemption is also odd because one of the bill's avowed goals is to prevent adolescent suicides. "What children have more access to guns than the children of police officers?" asked a lobbyist who fought the mandate.
Legislators must have recognized that police officers would not want their lives to depend on batteries, electronic chips, or recognition devices that could fail in an emergency. As the Independence Institute's Dave Kopel observes, "the police will not put up with a gun that is 99% reliable."
Even if a "smart gun" always worked as designed, various contingencies could prevent an officer from firing it. What if he forgot his transponder ring, wore gloves, had sweaty palms, switched hands, or tried to use a colleague's gun?
What if, indeed. Perhaps the Trial Lawyers association are seeing this as potential lawsuit fodder. Seriously - what better way to ban guns than make them ineffective? Speaking of costs:
The bill's authors probably were also concerned about the cost that "smart guns" would impose on police departments. Colt, one of the manufacturers working to develop personalized firearms, estimates they will cost $300 more than conventional models.
The mandate's supporters apparently did not worry about its impact on the budgets and lives of ordinary citizens. Yet once the law kicks in, it will effectively ban affordable handguns, preventing poor people in dangerous neighborhoods from defending themselves.
In a related note: All of you Minnesota gun owhers - if you're not hitting your knees every night thanking God for this past election, we need to talk.
Posted by Mitch at
December 22, 2002 01:53 AM
Ramsey County Judge John Finley didn't do his homework
Ramsey County Judge John Finley didn't do his homework when he ruled that the conceal and carry gun permit law (SF842) is unconstitutional because the process used to pass it violated the Minnesota State Constitution's single subject rule.
Minnesota Supreme Court in a previous decision (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C3-01-329 see link below) has already stated that in order for a piece of legislation to violate the single-subject requirement of Minn. Const. art. IV, § 17 that the legislation must be wholly unrelated with a law's subject. The common thread which runs through the various sections" need only be a "mere filament" and thus would be upheld.
“The purpose of preventing logrolling (the single-subject requirement) is to preclude unrelated subjects from appearing in a popular bill, not to eliminate unpopular provisions in a bill that genuinely encompasses one general subject.”
“The fact that a controversial bill could (may) not pass as a stand-alone bill, while not irrelevant, is not conclusive proof of impermissible logrolling.”
“The practice of bundling controversial, volatile provisions with germane and less-controversial laws is not impermissible logrolling. Rather, it is the nature of the democratic process where you have major and minor political parties, partisan politics, and an independent executive branch.”
The Court correctly reasoned that without the ‘mere filament’ test existing, most Omnibus bills would be in violation of the single-subject rule.
In the ruling, they have stated that if a common thread, (even a mere filament) exists and it’s in the Bill’s title, it probably would stand the test of the single-subject requirement and would be upheld.
The Plaintiff’s claim, among other things, is that it was attached to a DNR bill. That is incorrect. The first line of the bill reads: A bill for an act relating to state government regulation. True, there are DNR regulations, but it also includes off-highway vehical regulation,, but also modification of certain license regulations.primarly Regulation regarding hunting firearm regulations issued by the DNR
The firearm regulation changes (the common thread), continue from DNR regulations for hunting firearms right onto gun regulations changes for other firearms, specifically new CCW regulations.
The firearm REGULATION is the common thread in this bill.
The lawsuit also claimed it was a last minute amendment that many lawmakers didn’t even read and was snuck in at the last minute.. This is also not true. In fact, if you read the Legislator’s Journal, this Bill enjoyed a very LONG and LIVELY debate, and was aired on CSPAN live before it was passed. The CCW had also previously made it way past multiple committees.
I urge you read the2001 MN Court’s decision and SF842 in it’s entirety, and you will see that this Bill is NOT in violation of the Minnesota Constitution, but is a victim of selective political and Judicial meddling.
It’s truly ironic that Judge Finley used the words unconstitutional to strike down a state law that only re-affirms the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the Right to Bear Arms.
Douglas Anderson
Ham Lake, MN
Douglas_anderson@comcast.net
The Bill in question:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?session=ls83&version=latest&number=SF842&session_number=0&session_year=2003
The Minnesota court of Appeals decision referenced:
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS
C3-01-329
Defenders of Wildlife; Sierra Club, North Star Chapter;
Humane Society of the United States; Friends of Animals
and Their Environment; Help Our Wolves Live; Minnesota
Wolf Alliance; and the Animal Protection Institute,
Appellants,
vs.
Jesse Ventura, in his capacity as Governor
of the State of Minnesota,
Respondent.
Filed July 31, 2001
Affirmed
Randall, Judge
Concurring specially, Harten, Judge
Ramsey County District Court
File No. C600007325
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0107/c301329.htm
Posted by: douglas anderson at July 18, 2004 05:59 AM