|
|
|
It is currently Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:52 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
 |
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
Urgent help needed: new law proposed
| Author |
Message |
|
BigBlue
|
Post subject: Urgent help needed: new law proposed  Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:01 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
|
I need some quick advice to address a proposed new city ordinance. Any guidance is appreciated!
A metro area community is intending to pass a new ordinance that presents itself in general as a 'respectful workplace policy' for the city staff, volunteers, on-call employees (think fire dept), and elected & appointed officials. As part of this ordinance is the following attempt to restrict lawful carry by permit holders. This is not a good thing:
Overview:
Quote: The recommended policy includes language regarding possession of dangerous
weapons, primarily firearms. Other than police officers, the policy essentially prohibits all
employees and elected/appointed officials from caring such weapons while acting in their official
capacities. In addition, the policy covers interactions between the
aforementioned parties both during and outside of regular working hours. Actual language of ordinance: Quote: Possession and Use of Dangerous Weapons.
The possession and use of dangerous weapons is prohibited on City property, in City vehicles, or in any personal vehicle, which is being used for City business. For the purposes of this policy, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, explosive device, knife (other than pocket knives, kitchen knives or other types of knives required for use in the scope of an employee’s official City duties), electronic incapacitation device (stun gun/taser) or other “dangerous weapon” as defined by Minnesota Statutes 609.02. This prohibition includes possession or use by employees with valid permits to carry firearms. The following exceptions to the dangerous weapons prohibition are as follows:
• Employees legally in possession of a firearm for which the employee holds a valid permit, if required, and said firearm is secured within an attended personal vehicle or concealed from view within a locked unattended personal vehicle while that person is working on City property.
• A person who is showing or transferring the weapon or firearm to a police officer as part of an investigation.
• Police officers and employees who are in possession of a weapon or firearm in the scope of their official duties. If not, I need some help building a case so that when I attend my city's council meeting I can describe why this is a very bad idea.
Help!
Thanks,
BB
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:06 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
|
The city, as an employer, may regulate the conduct of their employees, with employment-based sanctions for violations.
The city may not regulate the carry of firearms by non-employees in any way.
Subd. 18. Employers; public colleges and universities.
(a) An employer, whether public or private, may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related civil sanctions may be invoked for a violation. In other words, they can fire an employee, but not charge her with any sort of crime or offense. The proposed ordinance seems to be sloppily written, in that it does not attempt to limit its scope. That doesn't matter, in practice, as any firearm ordinance in conflict with state law is null and void: The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:
(a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and
(b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.
Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void. ...and this: Subd. 23. Exclusivity.
This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.
In the past, we've had good results talking directly to the city attorneys, who advise the city councils. They would often much rather help the councils craft enforceable ordinances than waste everyone's time with ill-conceived or symbolic nonsense.
I said often, not always... 
_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lobster
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
| Journeyman Member |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:59 pm
Posts: 77
Location: Eveleth, MN/Dugway, UT/Dublin, IE
|
|
What city?
_________________
Erin Go Bragh!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigBlue
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:47 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
|
|
Thanks Andrew. I guess that means there is not a legal avenue to prevent this, as far as 'employees' go. However, how far do 'employees' go? The city wants to limit all people representing the city, from volunteer firefighters to elected council members to volunteer park board members, etc. Can they do that for anyone who is representing the city in any way, or must it strictly be an employee?
I guess this will have to be defended from the point of view that there is just no justification for limiting carry permit holders from posessing. I'll need to gather the details about how many permit holders there are in MN, how few crimes they commit, the fact that they are trained and screened and typically very safe & responsible people. A lot of this is on those handout cards that people give posted/signed businesses. But pointers to any other facts I can use to justify why limiting these rights is not necessary would be appreciated.
Thanks,
BB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rtk
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:58 am |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:45 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Minnetonka
|
|
I think that most jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have done it within their personnel manuals. I do believe that if you are a union member and are under a collective bargaining agreement with a jurisdiction that your contract needs to specify this within the signed agreement for it to be valid within a court of law but.....I am sure that most would not be willing to be the poster child to find out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fyrwys
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:22 am |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:03 am
Posts: 118
Location: South Metro
|
Quote: how many permit holders there are in MN, how few crimes they commit, I'd be willing to bet that the concern expressed will be about the possibility for accidents--you know, how pistols tend to randomly fire on their own. The simple response to that is, "show me a documented example". A more thoughtful response can better be handled by others on this board. But be prepared for that concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|
