Constitutional Carry

Discussion in 'Minnesota Gun Forum' started by racer1, Feb 14, 2015.

  1. racer1

    racer1 New Member Supporter

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

  2. mseric

    mseric New Member

    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.

  3. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    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.
  4. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    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.)

    Constitutional Carry Coming to Mississippi


    "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.”
  5. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    That isabout as lame an argument as was ever though by Socialists.
  6. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Tht’s the argument that was used in the battle for Constitutional Open Carry in Mississippi. It didn’t fly here.

  7. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    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-

    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!
  9. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    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.