Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - "Ramsey county bans firearms..."

bkrafft wrote:

Hmmm, most of my previous post seems to have been eaten by the int3rwebz gremlins. Well here is a draft of my letter:

Quote:

Dear Mr. Lookingbill,

In your letter you state "Neither of the statutes cited [Minn. Stat. §471.633 and §624.714, Subd. 23] denies Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property". Can you please explain to me why you believe that §624.72 Subd. 23's statement "No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may ... limit the exercise of a permit to carry" fails to "den[y] Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property" when those weapons are being carried in accordance with §624.72? Could you also please explain how a ban on county property does not constitute a "limitation on a permit to carry"

I am also curious how you can construe §471.633 "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" to "apply only to a Countywide regulation of firearms".

You cite Adderly v. Florida as an example of "the right of municipalities to pass reasonable regulations with respect the use of their property" but Adderly specifically states that the defendants were on a nonpublic driveway whereas Ramsey County Public Safety Ordinance 2003-214 specifically applies to public property.

Finally Brown v. Louisiana actually supports my belief that your ordinance is unlawful when it states in paragraph 3 of the holding "Regulation of libraries and other public facilities must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and may not be used as a pretext for punishing those who exercise their constitutional rights." Since the "legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms" your ordinance is discriminatory in that it attempts to punish those who exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in accordance with Minn. §624.72.

Thank-you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bruce W. Krafft

Comments, suggestions, rewrites?

Author:	SultanOfBrunei [ Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:11 am ]
Post subject:
Andrew Rothman wrote: Awesome. +1

Author:	teamgreen02 [ Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:34 am ]
Post subject:
SultanOfBrunei wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: Awesome. +1 +2 I think a big "pwned" sign slapped over their gun banning signs may be fitting.

Author:	bkrafft [ Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Sent as is. I don't honestly expect to hear anything from them tomorrow, but they are claiming that they can ban guns on <I>all</i> county property, so this is an issue that needs to be addressed sometime.

Author:	mnglocker [ Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Is crow season still open? Let's bag one and hand deliver a roast of crow for the county officials to eat.

Author:	bkrafft [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:45 am ]
Post subject:
mnglocker wrote: Is crow season still open? Let's bag one and hand deliver a roast of crow for the county officials to eat. I dunno, I halfway expect at some point for one of them to say "Oh! You mean carrying a gun with a <I>permit</i>! Well of <I>course</i> that's not what the ordinance is talking about!"

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

"Ramsey county bans firearms..." http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10034	Page 4 of 5

Author:	kecker [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:
bkrafft wrote: Hmmm, most of my previous post seems to have been eaten by the int3rwebz gremlins. Well here is a draft of my letter: Quote: Dear Mr. Lookingbill, In your letter you state "Neither of the statutes cited [Minn. Stat. §471.633 and §624.714, Subd. 23] denies Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property". Can you please explain to me why you believe that §624.72 Subd. 23's statement "No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may ... limit the exercise of a permit to carry" fails to "den[y] Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property" when those weapons are being carried in accordance with §624.72? Could you also please explain how a ban on county property does not constitute a "limitation on a permit to carry" I am also curious how you can construe §471.633 "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" to "apply only to a Countywide regulation of firearms". You cite Adderly v. Florida as an example of "the right of municipalities to pass reasonable regulations with respect the use of their property" but Adderly specifically states that the defendants were on a nonpublic driveway whereas Ramsey County Public Safety Ordinance 2003-214 specifically applies to public property. Finally Brown v. Louisiana actually supports my belief that your ordinance is unlawful when it states in paragraph 3 of the holding "Regulation of libraries and other public facilities must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and may not be used as a pretext for punishing those who exercise their constitutional rights." Since the "legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms" your ordinance is discriminatory in that it attempts to punish those who exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in accordance with Minn. §624.72. Thank-you for your time. Sincerely, Bruce W. Krafft Comments, suggestions, rewrites? Is it wrong that I happily giggled like a school girl after reading this??

Author:	kimberman [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:
No signs in Roseville.

Author:	bkrafft [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:
Signs in Maplewood. I was a good boy and locked my gun(s) in the trunk. I did rather startle some guy who walked past with a stroller as I was checking the chamber and holstering my .40. I did get some pictures of the sign; if someone wants to PM me directions on how to do it I'll post them or e-mail them to someone to post . . .

Author:	Tick Slayer [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:
bkrafft wrote: I did rather startle some guy who walked past with a stroller as I was checking the chamber and holstering my .40. Do you think he would have been more startled if he knew where you work?

Author:	mnglocker [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:49 pm ]
Post subject:
bkrafft wrote: Signs in Maplewood. I was a good boy and locked my gun(s) in the trunk. I did rather startle some guy who walked past with a stroller as I was checking the chamber and holstering my .40. I did get some pictures of the sign; if someone wants to PM me directions on how to do it I'll post them or e-mail them to someone to post . . . Go to imageshack.us, upload the pic, and copy and past the link that contains the [img] tags.

Author:	bkrafft [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:
mnglocker wrote: Go to imageshack.us, upload the pic, and copy and past the link that contains the [img] tags. thanx mnglocker. <img src="http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/2255/1104081230ma3.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/> Oops. I just realized they ban ammo, too and I had my spare mag still in my shoulder rig

Author:	1911fan [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:
I was the fourth poster in this thread and reported on Mounds View removing the signs. I am very happy to report that they were still no where to be found AND the City Administrator walked up to me and asked if I noticed. He said Ramsey County was getting a lot of grief over the signs. He said the city Atty had decided that the county did not have the authority to post them.

Author:	Jeremiah [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:36 am ]
Post subject:
Nice!

Author:	Traveler [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:48 pm ]
Post subject:
At this point I am a little more interested in the sign to the left of the "Notice To Voters" gun ban sign. What does it say? "Notice: Sneak behind this bench and fill out a ballot for Obama if you are not eligible to vote in this precinct." ???

Page 4 of 5	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	bkrafft [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Traveler wrote: At this point I am a little more interested in the sign to the left of the "Notice To Voters" gun ban sign. What does it say? "Notice: Sneak behind this bench and fill out a ballot for Obama if you are not eligible to vote in this precinct." ??? Actually it points out that it is a felony to vote if you are not eligible.