MNGunTalk.com

bstrawse wrote:The responses from Ramsey County, the Ramsey County Sheriff, and the State Agricultural Society are now posted on our website at http://gunowners.mn/statefair

Our hearing is today at 1:30PM on our motion for a temporary injunction. We expect a decision within a few days.

You can listen in starting at 1:30pm at 612-902-9678 with access code 0101019.

Bryan

Can you summarize the call and what the arguments were, especially from the fair side?

Caucus/Rev. Tim Christopher/Cade-Hauptman Arguments:

• The fair is preempted by multiple state statutes from banning lawful, permitted carry
• People have been carrying lawfully at the fair for decades
• The metal detectors and joint powers agreement have forced our hand
• We simply want the courts to read the statute and order the Fair/Ramsey County to follow the law.

Fair/State Agricultural Society Position:

• The plaintiffs don't have a right to bring this lawsuit
• The fair can set whatever rules it wants for the operation of the fair
• Preemption and the Carry Law do not apply
• The plaintiffs waited too long to bring the case forward
• Guns are scary

Ramsey County/Sheriffs Position:

• The County/Sheriff should not be a party to this suit. They are only enforcing the Fair's rules.
• Guns are scary and only cops should carry
• Open carry will cause panic and stampedes

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:
Within the next 5-7 days we will have an order from the court granting or denying our motion. A granting or denial of the motion DOES NOT end the case.
At a future date, the merits of the case will be fully argued in court. Today was just about presenting what we believed was a need for an immediate injunction due to the rapidly approaching date of the fair.
We will keep you posted.

Citiot wrote:Interesting call... not sure what to make of it. I guess we'll soon find out when judge decides.

It's always hard to tell from a judge's questions and comments how she will rule. So we wait.

This is just the first step - and we'll have a much longer hearing/trial on the merits down the road.

And even if we lose, there will be multiple paths of appeal.

I don't understand how you can lose. I mean their argument is that they should not have to follow the law because they don't want to. I tried that once and still got a ticket for speeding.

Wonder what the odds are on getting the injunction granted? I think the long game is a win but I'm not all that optimistic about the judge granting the injunction and telling the fair to get bent over this year's fair. And of course the true long game is a little sketch as you know that they're just going to try to change the law to make it on their side. Even some of the Rs are going to end up siding with them on that. I know a lot of solidly conservative people who don't understand the need to carry a gun to the state fair. Even though they acknowledge that people have been carrying there all along. Dumb but true.

I know a lot of solidly conservative people who don't understand the need to carry a gun to the state fair.

If one carries in Walmart, or wherever, what would make them think the state fair would be any more safe?

Rowdy Roddy wrote:

I know a lot of solidly conservative people who don't understand the need to carry a gun to the state fair.

If one carries in Walmart, or wherever, what would make them think the state fair would be any more safe?

I don’t know what could ever be considered dangerous when you have a large group of people in a confined space.

Holland&Holland wrote:I don't understand how you can lose. I mean their argument is that they should not have to follow the law because they don't want to. I tried that once and still got a ticket for speeding.

It will all boil down to if the fair is deemed to be a public or governmental entity.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:I don't understand how you can lose. I mean their argument is that they should not have to follow the law because they don't want to. I tried that once and still got a ticket for speeding.

It will all boil down to if the fair is deemed to be a public or governmental entity.

The fair did not argue that they were not a governmental entity generally at the hearing. The case law is strongly against them on that front.

They did argue that neither 471.633 or 624.714 subd. 23 (the preemption laws) did not apply to them - and also that if they did, the law does not create a private right of action for a plaintiff.

All the documents in the case can be viewed at http://gunowners.mn/statefair.

INOR wrote:Wonder what the odds are on getting the injunction granted? I think the long game is a win but I'm not all that optimistic about the judge granting the injunction and telling the fair to get bent over this year's fair. And of course the true long game is a little sketch as you know that they're just going to try to change the law to make it on their side. Even some of the Rs are going to end up siding with them on that. I know a lot of solidly conservative people who don't understand the need to carry a gun to the state fair. Even though they acknowledge that people have been carrying there all along. Dumb but true.

The burden for a temporary injunction is quite high - particularly with a hearing a week before the fair. We may get punted down the road on the injunction just for that reason.

Re: Changing the law. We feel pretty confident that the anti-gun DFLers will try to do so in the upcoming legislative session - we're also confident that they do not have the votes to do so. We lined up legislative support before we went down this road.

b

Holland&Holland wrote:I don't understand how you can lose. I mean their argument is that they should not have to follow the law because they don't want to. I tried that once and still got a ticket for speeding.

Their argument was also that the legislature didn't intend for the law to apply to the state ag society - and that by giving them the power to pass any necessary rules or regulations or ordinances, that the legislature intended for them to bypass preemption.

We disagree of course.
b

bstrawse wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:I don't understand how you can lose. I mean their argument is that they should not have to follow the law because they don't want to. I tried that once and still got a ticket for speeding.

Their argument was also that the legislature didn't intend for the law to apply to the state ag society - and that by giving them the power to pass any necessary rules or regulations or ordinances, that the legislature intended for them to bypass preemption.

We disagree of course.
b

Sweet, so hanging cattle rustlers is legal at the state fair!

bstrawse wrote:

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:I don't understand how you can lose. I mean their argument is that they should not have to follow the law because they don't want to. I tried that once and still got a ticket for speeding.

It will all boil down to if the fair is deemed to be a public or governmental entity.

The fair did not argue that they were not a governmental entity generally at the hearing. The case law is strongly against them on that front.

They did argue that neither 471.633 or 624.714 subd. 23 (the preemption laws) did not apply to them - and also that if they did, the law does not create a private right of action for a plaintiff.

All the documents in the case can be viewed at http://gunowners.mn/statefair.

Yah but, guns are scary.

Any updates on the hearing yesterday?

BigBlue wrote:Any updates on the hearing yesterday?

The hearing was last week - see my lengthier update above.

We're still waiting on the judges ruling.
b