Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Firearms related political discussion forum

Re: Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Postby farmerj on Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:12 pm

I see it a bit differently...

They are a public building vs a private property.
We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Current moon phase
User avatar
farmerj
 
Posts: 4802 [View]
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 am
Location: The edge of the universe in the vertex of time on the space continuum of confusion

Re: Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Postby Randygmn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:20 am

She's a liar. On the one hand she says she wasn't fearful. On the other hand, she says she doesn't want to die for the work she does.
Randygmn
 
Posts: 901 [View]
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:52 pm

Re: Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Postby LarryP on Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:39 pm

I'll bet the anti's are pushing for this. If they can't ban some guns etc, it's a way to take away rights using a different approach.
LarryP
 
Posts: 1181 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:57 pm

Re: Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Postby 642rUS on Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:54 pm

Government is different in two ways. First, that they can require me to enter the business, and second that their using my tax money to pay for it.


This is exactly why the MCPPA expressly prohibits political subdivisions from "limit[ing] the exercise of a permit to carry."

471.633 removes any POWER from the city and makes any ordinance "void" while 624.714 re-emphisizes that a city has NO AUTHORITY to "limit" the scope of a carry permit.
642rUS
 
Posts: 58 [View]
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Postby farmerj on Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:55 pm

642rUS wrote:
Government is different in two ways. First, that they can require me to enter the business, and second that their using my tax money to pay for it.


This is exactly why the MCPPA expressly prohibits political subdivisions from "limit[ing] the exercise of a permit to carry."

471.633 removes any POWER from the city and makes any ordinance "void" while 624.714 re-emphisizes that a city has NO AUTHORITY to "limit" the scope of a carry permit.



Sure seem to be enough of them around that could care less about the laws as it is.

Glencoe and Meeker county just being two that I am aware of personally.
We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Current moon phase
User avatar
farmerj
 
Posts: 4802 [View]
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 am
Location: The edge of the universe in the vertex of time on the space continuum of confusion

Re: Cities object to state preemption of firearms ordinances.

Postby JJ on Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:51 pm

Actually got a follow up from my state senator:

Good afternoon Mr. JJ,

Senator Brown looked into the issue brought up in your email and article. Non-partisan Senate Counsel sent him information that he wanted passed on to you.

According to Senate Counsel, state law already preempts local units of government on this issue, so they are acting out of line with the statutes. In their opinion, passing another law would probably not be effective since these cities are already flouting the law. It would take an enforcement action (like a lawsuit) to bring them back into compliance.

I hope this information is helpful, but if you need anything else, please let me know and the senator or I will be happy to get back to you.

Have a good evening,

Kacie


Kacie Petersen
Legislative Assistant to Senator Benson
"a man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." Frederick Douglass
User avatar
JJ
 
Posts: 3541 [View]
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:43 pm
Location: Princeton

Previous

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron