Constitutional Carry
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Events and Meetups > State Forums > Minnesota Gun Forum >

Constitutional Carry


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2015, 11:02 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bloomington,Mn
Posts: 20
Liked 4 Times on 3 Posts

Default Constitutional Carry

Constitutional Carry bill has been introduced in the State Senate S.F.684 SPEAK UP GUY'S.

Dave


racer1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 02-20-2015, 08:11 PM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
Liked 1421 Times on 767 Posts
Likes Given: 798

Default

It will go nowhere.

This legislation is strongly opposed by the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs especially in the M-SP area and Governor Goofy will do as they ask. Veto.

That's if Goofy can remember how to spell his own name.


__________________
Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2015, 09:02 PM   #3
I used to play keyboards, but now ...
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 4,563
Liked 3337 Times on 2016 Posts
Likes Given: 3183

Default

I agree Mseric.

The Minnesota LEOs would oppose legislation that leaves them open to PERSONAL liability arising from their normal work. A LEO who arrests someone that's carrying would be open to a claim that the LEO was harassing the subject because they were carrying. As written it would put the LEOs in an impossible situation. Anyone carrying a gun, even someone whose authority to carry had been suspended, could claim harassment and force the LEO to spend his own money defending himself in civil court. Even if that court found the LEO justified in his actions, he'd be out the legal costs of defending himself.

I think the basic idea of making it legal to carry without a permit is a good one. However, they need to fix the personal liability situation. A LEO who, in good faith, arrests a person that they believe has had their permit suspended should not be liable.

Even then, the MN LEOs may object for other reasons. Don't know since I don't live there. Also, the M-SP LEOs are urban police who may be viewing general, unlicensed carry from the perspective of dealing with gangs. It's easy to imagine that affecting their opinions on the matter.
__________________
Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.
Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2015, 03:04 PM   #4
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ellis36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Batesville,Mississippi
Posts: 1,219
Liked 1083 Times on 526 Posts
Likes Given: 670

Default

Mississippi already has Constitutional Open Carry, but a concealed weapon requires a permit. Coming up before the Legislature in the next few days is a bill to allow Constitutional concealed carry. Senate Bill 2618 and House Bill 1272 proposes:

“An Act to amend Sec. 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972,”

“5 It shall not be a violation of this section for any person to carry a pistol, revolver or stun gun if the person is at least twenty-one (21) years of age and is legally able to possess firearms under State and Federal law, whether the person is a resident of the State or not. Nothing in this subsection 5 authorizes any person to carry a weapon within the places prohibited in Section 45-9-101(13.)




http://www.mississippigunnews.com/constitutional-carry-coming-to-mississippi/

Constitutional Carry Coming to Mississippi

BY DANA CRISWELL

"Last week there were two bill introduced that attempt to remove the unconstitutional barriers Mississippians face if they desire to carrying a concealed weapon. Our state constitution has always recognized that carrying a weapon for self-defense was a right, first enumerated in our U.S. Constitution and then reemphasized in our State Constitution.

Mississippi State Constitution Article 3; Section 12;

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Our state constitution clearly forbids the state from making or enforcing any law that prohibits or forbids a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property. That fact is not questionable or debatable. Any law, sign, ordinance, judge, sheriff, or police chief that attempts to prevent a citizen from openly carrying arms is unconstitutional, unless that citizen has had their right taken away by due process of the law.

But what if, because of societies misunderstanding of firearms, a citizen prefers to carry their arms concealed? Our state constitution allows the legislature to regulate or forbid carrying a concealed weapon. It does not say they must regulate or forbid it simply says they ‘may’.

Until now our legislators have chosen to forbid citizens from carrying a concealed weapon unless they obtain permission in the form of a firearms permit.


Many, including myself, question the constitutionality of limiting concealed carry. Our U.S. Constitution does not limit our right to a method of carry, openly or concealed, it simply states,

. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

“...Senate Bill 2618 and House Bill 1272 both attempt to remove the limitations on concealed carry. These are very important bills that gun owners must read and understand. I urge you to read these bills carefully and understand the changes they are making to our laws.”
ellis36 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2015, 05:59 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 678
Liked 225 Times on 161 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default Constitutional Carry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
I agree Mseric.

The Minnesota LEOs would oppose legislation that leaves them open to PERSONAL liability arising from their normal work. A LEO who arrests someone that's carrying would be open to a claim that the LEO was harassing the subject because they were carrying. As written it would put the LEOs in an impossible situation. Anyone carrying a gun, even someone whose authority to carry had been suspended, could claim harassment and force the LEO to spend his own money defending himself in civil court. Even if that court found the LEO justified in his actions, he'd be out the legal costs of defending himself.

I think the basic idea of making it legal to carry without a permit is a good one. However, they need to fix the personal liability situation. A LEO who, in good faith, arrests a person that they believe has had their permit suspended should not be liable.

Even then, the MN LEOs may object for other reasons. Don't know since I don't live there. Also, the M-SP LEOs are urban police who may be viewing general, unlicensed carry from the perspective of dealing with gangs. It's easy to imagine that affecting their opinions on the matter.
That isabout as lame an argument as was ever though by Socialists.
tinbucket is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2015, 09:46 PM   #6
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ellis36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Batesville,Mississippi
Posts: 1,219
Liked 1083 Times on 526 Posts
Likes Given: 670

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
I agree Mseric.

The Minnesota LEOs would oppose legislation that leaves them open to PERSONAL liability arising from their normal work. A LEO who arrests someone that's carrying would be open to a claim that the LEO was harassing the subject because they were carrying. As written it would put the LEOs in an impossible situation. Anyone carrying a gun, even someone whose authority to carry had been suspended, could claim harassment and force the LEO to spend his own money defending himself in civil court. Even if that court found the LEO justified in his actions, he'd be out the legal costs of defending himself.

I think the basic idea of making it legal to carry without a permit is a good one. However, they need to fix the personal liability situation. A LEO who, in good faith, arrests a person that they believe has had their permit suspended should not be liable.

Even then, the MN LEOs may object for other reasons. Don't know since I don't live there. Also, the M-SP LEOs are urban police who may be viewing general, unlicensed carry from the perspective of dealing with gangs. It's easy to imagine that affecting their opinions on the matter.
Tht’s the argument that was used in the battle for Constitutional Open Carry in Mississippi. It didn’t fly here.

ellis
ellis36 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2015, 12:07 AM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 3,488
Liked 1376 Times on 810 Posts
Likes Given: 252

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
Even if that court found the LEO justified in his actions, he'd be out the legal costs of defending himself.
Forgetting about "un"qualified immunity... ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

MI OC is becoming main stream acceptance. Some police officers are so bent on forcing compliance, they are making up stories to arrest people. Why shouldn't that officer have to spend his own money defending his misguided beliefs? Federal 1984 suits are now being filed to force communities to bring their out of control officers into compliance.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse... even while wearing a badge.
partdeux is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2015, 11:10 AM   #8
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 7,490
Liked 8231 Times on 4240 Posts
Likes Given: 9476

Default

I cant/ wont accept anything described as Constitutional unless thats all it is. If there is a single item in it that isnt supported by those few words in the BOR's than its just word baiting. Like "Safe" Act, "Patriot" Act and others that use words that inspire great things to hide the fact they dont really match the content.

Constitutional Carry to me reads-

Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, If Im an American (People) and Im not accused, convicted and serving a sentence in situational restriction, I can (Im People) choose to possess and use any firearm as intended without "infringement" as long as Im not committing a criminal act with it (restricting someones Natural Rights under law)!

Much more than that and I really cant see putting the word Constitutional in the name of the "Law", its not Constitutional when they infringe in any manner.

As far as that ignorance of the law is no excuse thing, that ends at the BOR's, when you add 10,000 new laws to the books since we became a Nation, its the perfect excuse for breaking a law, how can you possibly know all 10,000+ laws and be a Plumber, Electrician or Farmer? Even Lawyers specialize cause they dont know all the laws either!

Im for the KISS plan, 6th grade English states the rules better than novels filling libraries of Leagaleze and doublespeak!
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
Cnon Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2015, 04:41 PM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 3,488
Liked 1376 Times on 810 Posts
Likes Given: 252

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
Even Lawyers specialize cause they dont know all the laws either!
Local attorney took on a firearms case where the defendant got jacked up. Prosecutor was charging him with something that didn't exist in the law. Judge was pretty quick to dismiss that charge.... and the prosecutor admitted they had been convicting people for 10 years on the made up charge.

Attorney's statement to the local firearm community that anytime you're charged with a firearms violation, make sure you hire a firearm savvy attorney. I got into it with my own attorney one day. He was formerly the prosecutor for our small town. He also missed a minor point in the law and was dumbfounded when I pointed it out to him.


partdeux is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Constitutional Carry JW357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 09-23-2013 02:53 AM
How do I get constitutional carry in my state clip11 Legal and Activism 8 09-10-2011 04:25 AM
constitutional carry clip11 Legal and Activism 60 06-16-2010 02:21 AM
The rise of Constitutional carry? canebrake Legal and Activism 6 04-13-2010 04:28 PM



Newest Threads