Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: RKBA bill introduced Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:09 am |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
Hackbarth and Peppin introduced:
H. F. 0775, A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article I; providing that the right of citizens to keep, bear, and use arms for certain purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed.
The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety and Civil Justice.
A similar bill passed by 80% in Wisconsin. DFL leadership won't even give it a hearing here.
|
|
|
|
|
princewally
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:13 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am Posts: 1684 Location: St Louis Park
|
SF669 is the companion bill in the senate.
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:24 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am Posts: 1317 Location: Racine, MN
|
I filed a complaint with my representative, who happens to be a democrat. We will see if she is shamed into action or she was just pretnding to be pro-gun.
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:34 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
|
|
|
|
princewally
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:47 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am Posts: 1684 Location: St Louis Park
|
H.F. No. 775, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008) Posted on Feb 07, 2007
1.1A bill for an act
1.2proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article I; providing
1.3that the right of citizens to keep, bear, and use arms for certain purposes is
1.4fundamental and shall not be infringed.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
1.7An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the
1.8amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read:
1.9Sec. 18.The right of a citizen to keep, bear, and use arms for the defense and security
1.10of the person, family, or home, or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training
1.11is fundamental and shall not be infringed.
1.12 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
1.13The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2008 general
1.14election. The question submitted must be:
1.15"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that the right of a citizen
1.16to keep, bear, and use arms for the defense and security of the person, family, or home,
1.17or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training is fundamental and shall not
1.18be infringed?
1.19
Yes .......
1.20
No ......."
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:55 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
That looks pretty clean. I like! High Five!
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
princewally
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:14 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am Posts: 1684 Location: St Louis Park
|
I sent out emails to my representative and congressman.
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:17 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am Posts: 1317 Location: Racine, MN
|
My representative wasn't sure why we need the amendment, since the RKBA is covered by the U.S. constitution. I explained that too many legislators wrongly use the militia clause to interpret 2A as a collective right. I also mentioned that some progressives feel that the 2A is obsolete and that the meaning of the constitution should change with the times. The 2A has not stopped legislators from forsaking their oath to uphold the constitution everytime they pass more anti-gun legislation. She said she would look into it.
|
|
|
|
|
lumbering.buffalo
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:32 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:08 pm Posts: 267
|
sigman wrote: My representative wasn't sure why we need the amendment, since the RKBA is covered by the U.S. constitution.
The correct answer, I believe, is that the 2nd admendment deals with limiting the power of the FEDERAL government and does not pertain to the individual states. Without protection in the state constitution it is possible for a state, like Illinois for instance, to outlaw the possession of all firearms by private citizens and there is nothing the citizens could do about it. We need this protection in our state constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:37 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
The Minnesota Supreme Court in Atkinson said that the Second Amendment to the federal Bill of Rights doesn't apply to actions taken by the state of Minnesota.
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:41 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am Posts: 1317 Location: Racine, MN
|
kimberman wrote: The Minnesota Supreme Court in Atkinson said that the Second Amendment to the federal Bill of Rights doesn't apply to actions taken by the state of Minnesota.
I will send her that also.
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:48 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
The Democrats will see this as a Republican "Get out the vote" law, I think. A chance to vote for RKBA amendment will attract a significant number of voters who don't bother to vote. But once the extra gun voters come, 75% of them will vote Republican on everything else on the ballot.
So, even our pro-gun Dems don't really want this on the ballot. They will support it but secretly hope doesn't get done.
Maybe publicity about RKBA will discourage Dems from other gun legislation if they already taking heat about guns. Even if it is blocked, and I'd bet it will be (See Kimberman comment) it still might be worth a big effort.
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:43 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
I think you're right, Dick. Being proactive will keep them on their heels reacting to our proposals versus the other way around.
And I think we can really justify this issue at the current time. 44 other states have a RKBA amendment. Even Wisconsin, who doesn't have a carry law was the most recent state to pass a constitutional amendment.
Besides, if the DFL were to put this on the ballot, they would be able to make a lot of folks in "Greater MN" happy and retrench themselves politically.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:25 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
The problem with this one is that since it doesn't specifically address concealed carry, then the courts will hold that it does not apply to concealed carry.
I would be surprised if it would apply to open carry...
I applaud the attempt, but everyone (lawmakers) needs to look at legal issues that other states have with this type of amendment.
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
hammAR
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:27 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm Posts: 1941 Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
|
The judicial system and the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, liberal activist judges are a threat
The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.--- American Bar Association Coordinating Committee on Gun Violence, "Second Amendment Issues"
"Oh I'm for complete gun control. I don't believe you have any right to carry a gun.--- Former Justice Thurgood Marshall, Controversial Views
"[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."--- Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, December 16, 1991
All rhetoric aside, these lawmakers and their mentors in the National Rifle Association should recognize the undeniable fact that the Second Amendment has never been an impediment to laws limiting private ownership of firearms.--- Former Solictor General and Dean of the Harvard Law School, Erwin Griswold, "Phantom Second Amendment 'Rights' " Washington Post, November 4, 1990
These are just a few statements that came up on a yahoo.com search for anti-gun quotes from liberal activist judges, from law schools and the American Bar Association. Do we want to leave the decision to Judges (i.e. Hennepin County Judges)..............
|
|
|
|
|
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 16 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
|