Damn those "activist judges" and their obligation to follow the constitution of the State of Minnesota!

Who said anything about activist judges?

The law, however, is wrong. It needs to be changed.

Given that "the law" in this case is the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, it's going to take an amendment to do it. Maybe Michele Bachmann can handle it--she's usually tossing off proposed amendments every 3.4 seconds or so.

As for crying about how the evil judges have wrecked poor, misunderstood conceal 'n' carry (which, I remind everyone, I was neutral-leaning-positive on), let's not forget we got into this mess because the GOP was hell-bent on ramming this issue through as quickly as possible. Had people taken a step back, talked through some of the weirder issues regarding the law, and come up with a bill that would be able to pass on its own, we wouldn't be in this position right now--with no conceal and carry law in effect.

That was my position at the time, and I've seen nothing that indicates I was wrong. Rather than continuing to litigate this, the legislature should make things really easy by reintroducing concealed carry and this time, getting it right.

"let's not forget we got into this mess because the GOP was hell-bent on ramming this issue through as quickly as possible."

Eight years of "ramming" through "as quickly as possible".

Seriously. CCRN-MN started in 1994-5. The law passed after eight solid years of grassroots organizing. If that's fast ramming, I'd hate to see what patience and deliberation look like.

" Had people taken a step back, talked through some of the weirder issues regarding the law, and come up with a bill that would be able to pass on its own, we wouldn't be in this position right now--with no conceal and carry law in effect."

After eight years, with an election coming on, up against the likes of Wes Skoglund and a media with whom the fix was in, CCRN had to take its best shot. Given that most MInnesota laws are omnibus bills with more tenuous, "wierder" connections than this law, it seemed like a good bet.

I'd like to see it go through the legislature - but until the good guys control the Senate, it's going to bog down in committee, like it did every session from '97 through '02.

As a practical matter, I suspect that this new opinion may open the floodgates for challenges to many bills, and provisions of bills, over the next three years. The writing is a bit more expansive than the previous logrolling opinions, and would seem to encompass within its newly-defined (or at least newly-clarified) prohibitions practices that can be found in most every passage. As Mitch said, few bills have just one defined subject. If we then need to pass one bill for every desired change, things are going to slow down, and we're not moving that fast to begin with.

Well, therein lies the problem. I bet taxes would be more to my liking if Phil Krinkie wasn't chairing the House Tax Committee, too, but there you go; stuff getting bogged down in committee is part of the process. It's frustrating, sure, but it is what it is. The alternative is bills able to fly through at the whim of a majority of Senators, and while that's great in some cases, it would be a disaster for those of us who like government to move slowly, with great deliberation, and often not at all.

As for concealed carry, I actually think it's got a better chance now than it did in '02, given that no shootouts have occurred. Go back to the legislature now with an actual record to defend. Heck, it might be a winner for you now.

But the jig is up in the courts; the Appeals Court decision is right in point of law, even if those points of law are routinely ignored by the legislature. There's no "the Constitution is invalid if we pretend it doesn't exist" clause.

Truthfully, I'm not overwhelmingly thrilled by this decision because I think it does open up Pandora's box vis a vis Minnesota State Statutes. (Robin noted over on her site that the new abortion restrictions passed by the House--and attached to a bill regulating Circuses--are as good as gone. I don't doubt that a number of laws I think are swell will be gone soon, too.)

But going forward, this will force the legislature to actually follow the rules. That's bad for people who want to see the legislature pass a lot of laws. Of course, I've never been one of those people, so while I think there will be some short-term chaos, in the end this will create a Minnesota legislature that can do less than it could before.

And the libertarian in me thinks that's a really good thing.

"But going forward, this will force the legislature to actually follow the rules."

But, truly, wasn't this a remedy in search of a problem? I think the subject was better off ignored, at least until we had a problem bill containing a tangential provision that was included surreptitiously - the stealth provision, as it were - that's the harm the anti-rolling rule guards against. That certainly wasn't the case here - I remember several small instances of public comment on this provision back when. .

Problem now is, when they could have applied this to thousands of bills in the past ten years, but chose this just one, it leaves a bad flavor - a feeling that the subject was the driver, and not a punctilio of adherence to the Word.

Mitch,

Obviously, I'm no expert on Minnesota law, but I can provide a little general legal background. Single-subject requirements are not uncommon. Florida has one, and it is frequently used to make sure that proposed laws clearly state what they accomplish, so that confusing, ulterior motives are not bundled in.

I have not taken the time to check whether the statement you quoted about only five laws ever being overturned in Minnesota under the state constitutional provision mandating single subject laws. But a very quick search discovered that the provision has been cited in 252 reported Minnesota court decisions. So it's hardly some sort of never-used bit of legal minutia dreamed up to stop this gun law.

I know nothing about the law struck down in this case and express no opinion about whether it does or does not pass the single subject requirement.

Carry on,
/jc

I'm obviously less of an expert, although if I have any familiarity with the law, it's in this area (and, arguably, family law).

Minnesota's single subject law is in the constitution, IIRC - but a body of court precedents allows omnibus bills as long as there's a "filament" connecting the subjects. Omnibus bills are the vehicle for an AWFUL lot of legislation, including the *vast* majority (I've been told 2/3) of spending bills in the MN legislature. The definition of "filament" is *extremely* vague, and the spending bills/laws show it; the pro-MPPA lawyers dug out a slew of bizarre filaments which have passed muster over the last thirty years...

...which is why Minnesota's Attorney General, Mike Hatch - a DFLer and probable gubernatorial candidate, and a long-standing opponent of concealed-carry legislation - argued in favor of the appeal that was just rejected; no friend of the gun owner, he IS worried that this precedent will allow challenges to literally *thousands* of spending bills including most of the current funding for a majority of government programs. It's been said that without the omnibus bill, ludicrous filaments and all, nothing would EVER get done in Minnesota.

Which would almost be enough to make the rejection worth it, as long as we get the MPPA through the legislature or the SCOM.

A very nice website !! Very well Done !!! nokia6630