April
12, 2005--Nearly two years after Minnesota passed shall-issue
concealed carry legislation, the state Court of Appeals agreed
with a lower court ruling that the legislation was unconstitutional.
Following passage of the legislation in
2003, opponents of concealed carry, led by two dozen church groups
and the city of Minneapolis, filed suit in Ramsey County Judge
John T. Finley's court.
The challenge was based on a provision
in the Minnesota constitution which requires bills passed to be
"single subject," meaning that bills cannot have unrelated
provisons tacked on to them.
Supporters on Minnesota's concealed carry
bill were taken by surprise, since the concealed carry bill was
part of a natural resources bill dealing with snowmobiles, fish
houses, park fees, and other issues that supporters considered
related to gun issues. Moreover, supporters said that the controversy
surrounding the bill's passage in 2003 made it clear that it was
not being hidden from public notice.
Prior to the passage of the shall-issue
concealed carry legislation, Minnesota was a "may-issue"
state, meaning that issuance of permits was at the discretion
of any of the state's 87 sheriffs. As of December 31, 2002 there
were slightly over 11,000 may-issue permits in effect.
This is just the fifth time in 148 years
that a Minnesota high court has ruled legislation unconstitutional
based on the single-subject requirement.
The court's ruling may open the floodgates
for challenges to other state laws not related to guns. There
are already reports that conservative-leaning taxpayer groups
may challenge existing laws based on today's court ruling.
Meanwhile, supporters of shall-issue legislation
are looking to introduce a stand-alone concealed carry bill this
session. However, backers of the bill may have a tougher time
this year, since many legislators who voted for the 2003 bill
are no longer in office.
Supporters of the bill are also expected
to take their case to the Minnesota state supreme court.
The court's ruling effectively invalidates
permits issued under the 2003 legislation, although permits issued
under the older may-issue system would remain valid.
Ironically, many sheriffs and other law
enforcement officials who resisted the shall-issue bill have since
embraced the idea, and for a number of reasons: the shall-issue
system provided significantly more money to issuing sheriffs'
departments; the shall-issue system created a uniform training
requirement that did not exist under the old system; and the officials
found that their fears of "blood in the streets" were
unfounded.
Indeed, many law enforcement officials
have publicly expressed their pleasure with the behavior of permit
holders.
Perhaps these officials will now join
supporters of shall-issue concealed carry in lobbying for a new
bill.
|
