|
|
It is currently Tue May 14, 2024 8:30 pm
|
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
|
[ 9 posts ] |
|
Author |
Message |
matt160
|
Post subject: [MN Leg] HF 93 Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:40 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:18 am Posts: 1086 Location: Anoka, MN
|
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0093.0.html&session=ls85
Quote: H.F. No. 93, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008) Posted on Jan 11, 2007
1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to government data practices; providing for parole and probation 1.3 authorities to have access to certain records; amending Minnesota Statutes 2006, 1.4 section 624.714, by adding a subdivision. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 624.714, is amended by adding a 1.7 subdivision to read: 1.8 Subd. 14a. Parole and probation authority access to records. Parole and 1.9 probation authorities must be given access to records or data collected, made, or held 1.10 under this section concerning any applicant or permit holder who is a defendant, parolee, 1.11 or probationer of a district court.
Please tell me Kommrade Mullery how did they get the permit to begin with? Are there any cases of where a parolee got a permit or a sherrif/DA failed to revoke it? Sounds like another case of mental masterbation.
_________________ "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
My guess is that he is trying to "protect" parole officers from their clients who may legally be eligible to have a permit.
Mullery is noted for being a classic "do-nothing" busy-body.
I can sort-of see where a parole officer might be better off knowing if his client has a permit-to-carry.
I'd gladly give him this piece of legislation if they'd take schools off the list of prohibited places to carry.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:51 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
He's not stupid.
When the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association agreed several years ago to allow them to "mine" the hunting license lists (something I thought passed 2 or 3 years ago), the expansion possibilities for the policy were clear if you thought about it.
Anything that amends section 624.714 imperils the entire carry statute.
Last edited by kimberman on Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
hammAR
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:54 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm Posts: 1941 Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
|
DeanC wrote: I can sort-of see where a parole officer might be better off knowing if his client has a permit-to-carry.
I'd gladly give him this piece of legislation if they'd take schools off the list of prohibited places to carry.
Purely a smoke screen another false safety issue, a "for the children" type of distraction. Do not compromise and give away seemingly "little" any things.
It's kind of like leggos, you start off with a pile of disconnected pieces, then suddenly you have a big fortress..............
Last edited by hammAR on Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
Srigs
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:03 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am Posts: 3752 Location: East Suburbs
|
This is a non-issue from 624.714.
Quote: Subd. 8. Permit to carry voided. (a) The permit to carry is void at the time that the holder becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, in which event the holder must return the permit card to the issuing sheriff within five business days after the holder knows or should know that the holder is a prohibited person. If the sheriff has knowledge that a permit is void under this paragraph, the sheriff must give notice to the permit holder in writing in the same manner as a denial. Failure of the holder to return the permit within the five days is a gross misdemeanor unless the court finds that the circumstances or the physical or mental condition of the permit holder prevented the holder from complying with the return requirement. (b) When a permit holder is convicted of an offense that prohibits the permit holder from possessing a firearm, the court must take possession of the permit, if it is available, and send it to the issuing sheriff. (c) The sheriff of the county where the application was submitted, or of the county of the permit holder's current residence, may file a petition with the district court therein, for an order revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3). An order shall be issued only if the sheriff meets the burden of proof and criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees. (d) A permit revocation must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff. Subd. 8a. Prosecutor's duty. Whenever a person is charged with an offense that would, upon conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney must ascertain whether the person is a permit holder under this section. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor must notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a prohibiting offense. The prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of the case.
_________________ Srigs
Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
|
A Brit in MN
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:09 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:32 pm Posts: 1803 Location: Woodbury
|
I CRY F NG BULLSHIT
This is'nt an ammendment, he wants to change all these aspects of the law
Quote: Subd. 8. Permit to carry voided. (a) The permit to carry is void at the time that the holder becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, in which event the holder must return the permit card to the issuing sheriff within five business days after the holder knows or should know that the holder is a prohibited person. If the sheriff has knowledge that a permit is void under this paragraph, the sheriff must give notice to the permit holder in writing in the same manner as a denial. Failure of the holder to return the permit within the five days is a gross misdemeanor unless the court finds that the circumstances or the physical or mental condition of the permit holder prevented the holder from complying with the return requirement.
(b) When a permit holder is convicted of an offense that prohibits the permit holder from possessing a firearm, the court must take possession of the permit, if it is available, and send it to the issuing sheriff.
(c) The sheriff of the county where the application was submitted, or of the county of the permit holder's current residence, may file a petition with the district court therein, for an order revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3). An order shall be issued only if the sheriff meets the burden of proof and criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees.
(d) A permit revocation must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff.
Subd. 8a. Prosecutor's duty. Whenever a person is charged with an offense that would, upon conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney must ascertain whether the person is a permit holder under this section. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor must notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a prohibiting offense. The prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of the case. Quote: Subd. 12a. Suspension as condition of release. The district court may order suspension of the application process for a permit or suspend the permit of a permit holder as a condition of release pursuant to the same criteria as the surrender of firearms under section 629.715. A permit suspension must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff. If the permit holder has an out-of-state permit recognized under subdivision 16, the court must promptly report the suspension to the commissioner for inclusion solely in the database under subdivision 15, paragraph (a). Quote: Subd. 14. Records. (a) A sheriff must not maintain records or data collected, made, or held under this section concerning any applicant or permit holder that are not necessary under this section to support a permit that is outstanding or eligible for renewal under subdivision 7, paragraph (b). Notwithstanding section 138.163, sheriffs must completely purge all files and databases by March 1 of each year to delete all information collected under this section concerning all persons who are no longer current permit holders or currently eligible to renew their permit.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to records or data concerning an applicant or permit holder who has had a permit denied or revoked under the criteria established in subdivision 2, paragraph (b), clause (1), or subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3), for a period of six years from the date of the denial or revocation.
Subd. 15. Commissioner; contracts; database. (a) The commissioner must maintain an automated database of persons authorized to carry pistols under this section that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only to law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors carrying out their duties under subdivision 8a, to verify the validity of a permit.
(b) The commissioner may maintain a separate automated database of denied applications for permits to carry and of revoked permits that is available only to sheriffs performing their duties under this section containing the date of, the statutory basis for, and the initiating agency for any permit application denied or permit revoked for a period of six years from the date of the denial or revocation.
As for the probation officer needing to know..........if the sheriff and the prosecuting atty do there job, fine, OTHERWISE IT'S NONE OF THEIR F NG BUSINESS!!
edit 1/18/07 once by Brit for expletives, but not the passion with which they were written
Last edited by A Brit in MN on Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
hammAR
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:18 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm Posts: 1941 Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
|
Deleted by author....
Last edited by hammAR on Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
hammAR
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:26 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm Posts: 1941 Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
|
Srigs wrote: This is a non-issue from 624.714. But this is an issue, it is one way to disassemble 624.714 without directly attacking it. Pick it apart a piece at a time with seemingly non-issues then surround it with a moat and add lots of confusion.... Quote: Subd. 15. Commissioner; contracts; database. (a) The commissioner must maintain an automated database of persons authorized to carry pistols under this section that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only to law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors carrying out their duties under subdivision 8a, to verify the validity of a permit.
This will only be valid until the media presses for "Freedom of Information Act" and is supported by an anti Judge......
|
|
|
|
|
Mike
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:45 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:18 pm Posts: 402 Location: Saint Paul
|
Alone, it seems a non-issue, redundant POS piece of legislation. BFD. How long till all of these seemingly useless bits gets tossed into an omnibus act with some really juicy bits and few things like enhanced sex offender penalties to make it veritable suicide to vote against? Next question? Can they be held off for the renewal surge in '08? That buys a large group of folks 5 years in many scenarios.
_________________ Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 9 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 6 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
|
|
|