photogpat wrote:Just checking. Been awhile since I’ve logged in…just seeing who’s still here (and who’s a bot).

I'm still here.

Lumpy wrote:It's late, I'm tired and I'm not finding a breakdown by party; would someone tabulate this for me please?

We posted the vote on Facebook and Twitter - it was along party lines with no defections.
b

Bearcatrp wrote:How about we jump in one of those Supreme Court cars when they are driving around and tell them it’s a public place so thought I would jump in a public place. See how they like it.

Again, that's *not* what the court said.

samginko wrote:Makes sense. Your residence is on a public street. So, interior of your house is a public place.

That's not what the court said.

This story is not a good explanation of the case despite my trading emails with the reporter.

Here's our explainer.

https://gunowners.mn/learn/frequently-a ... explainer/

Zarthan wrote:Brian,
Are any other groups suing the state over this?

Over binary triggers? No.

Over omnibus bills? United Healthcare is suing over the same bill.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:This case should be a slam dunk, except it's in marxist'sota.

Due to previous precedent, it definitely won't be a slam dunk unfortuantely.

Jackpine Savage wrote:I believe this was the exact reason that the first Carry law was thrown out so it should be a slam dunk, unless the Democrat judges are hypocrites.

Correct, that was tacked onto a DNR bill.

PRESS RELEASE: MN Gun Owners Caucus sues the State of Minnesota over Frankenstein Omnibus Bill and its Binary Trigger Provisions The Lawsuit Calls Out Violations of the Constitution’s Single Subject Clause, Noting Gun Regulations are Unrelated to the Operation and Finance of State Government Today, ...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mssd.123238/gov.uscourts.mssd.123238.28.0.pdf Case raises several legal points that someone with a better understanding of law than mine will have to analyze. I'm told that strictly this only applies to one person's conviction and does not in and...

dismal wrote:Will the ex-VP candydate sign it?

I expect he would veto it.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF76&version=latest&session=ls94&session_year=2025&session_number=0 SF0076 - Clarifying, codifying, and extending Minnesota's self-defense laws and modifying self defense provisions A bill for an act relating to fi...

Jackpine Savage wrote:

atomic41 wrote:

Jackpine Savage wrote:About time.

Now we get to see if the MN Supremes have any integrity.

Didn't they answer that question with their ruling on serial number requirements for firearms?

Did they finally rule on the serial number case? If so I missed it.

No

Jackpine Savage wrote:When the home invader Senator gets convicted, what are the odds of the Republicans picking up that seat?

She has to be removed. She won that seat in 2022 58%-41% - but we didn't run a great candidate, so maybe - but I think its a long shot.
b

Now will we see some actual pro-gun legislation, or the usual passive neglect out of the Republicans? We've had pro-gun legislation introduced in every single session. When you're in the minority, your bills don't get heard. Right now the Senate is a tie (33-33) and the House is a 67-66 GOP majorit...