Here in Washington (state), there is the same requirement for initiatives. They must only deal with one issue at a time. This prevents idiotic riders which we see constantly at a federal level.

The funny thing is, only judges get a say on what counts as an 'issue', and only libertarian, socially, or economically conservative laws are ever reviewed in this way. A law that forced people to pay indefinitely for, say, the light rail fiasco /and/ indemnified the contractors from lawsuits would never be challenged in this way.

Take a deep breath Mitch; in through the nose..

This does not have an ice cube's chance in hell of surviving appeal.

Think of all the programs, entitlements, special rights for favored interests & etc. that were snuck in on the backs of some innocuous piece of legislation. They'd all be vulnerable to the same reinterpretation.

The Dem's won't want to risk it.

Actually, I'd like to see the legislature take another whack at this, if only because Concealed Carry I was such a patched-together mess. (This is why committees are good things--many of the more problematic issues in the law would've been fixed had it gone through committee).

As for the appeal, GOP Bogeyman Mike Hatch is doing what a responsible Attorney General should do and appealing the decision. I would simply argue that the bill be passed alone, on its own merits; it's not a terrible idea, it didn't cause pandemonium, it's fine. There are just a few problems with the law that I think could be fixed, and we could come out with a law that more people could support.

Oh, and as for the point of law: yeah, it's shaky. But Christmas-Tree legislation is pretty clearly prohibited by the Minnesota Consitution. Yes, much legislation is Christmas-Tree-based; it gets through because nobody challenges it. But forcing the legislature to take up issues on their own merits is a good thing. It keeps both parties from tacking on their pet projects, which limits the growth of government. I wouldn't mind seeing this upheld; it would improve the legislative process.

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