Aren't injunctions staying enforcement while appeals are underway a common thing? Given the apparent unconstitutionality of these proposed laws, I'm wondering how seriously MN Democrats expect success as opposed to merely making political hay while the sun shines the latest tragedy is still fresh. ...

So far so good but what if anything does it bode for the future? Will the law get passed in renewed form later? Maybe tucked into an omnibus "safety" bill? Sure, they can reintroduce it and try in 2026. But the DFL doesn't control the House anymore, we should be able to stop it in committ...

Two notes on this case:
1). This is in the 5th circuit - we're in the 8th, so this doesn't apply here.
2) Because of how MN's carry law is written, police can stop you and ask to see your permit because carrying a firearm is presumptively illegal in Minnesota.

It's sad when we have to celebrate courts being able to read and understand the plain text of the statute. It appears that at least two, including the chief justice, can't read :shock: The third either wasn't interested, protesting, or something? Justice Gaitas recused herself because she had ruled...

jdege wrote:Amazing, isn't it, how all the organizations except the Dorrs' are screwing over gun owners, and yet the Dorr brothers never actually do anything?

that's always how it works with the Dorrs, same story in every situation

Any idea on how this will affect state laws that ban silencers except for those that are registered in accordance with federal law? https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.66 Subd. 1a.Felony crimes; suppressors; reckless discharge. (a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony an...

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, ...