SF684 Constitutional Carry

[steve4102]

MN Constitutional Carry Bill SF 684 has been introduced.

https://legiscan.com/MN/text/SF684/2015

Sorry if this has been posted already.

[Lumpy]

While Constitutional Carry would be ideal, I have my doubts about pursuing it being the best political strategy.

First, since Minnesota has no state constitutional protection for owning and carrying firearms, the "Constitutional" part would be 2nd Amendment- and although the Supreme Court has ruled that a state cannot flatly ban carry, the appeals it has declined to hear suggest that it does not want to forbid states from regulating firearms. In other words, "Constitutional" carry would be legislative, not judicial in basis- and what the legislature can give it can take away.

Second, the requirements of permit carry allow firearms proponents to silence the critics of carry by pointing out that the permit process selects for the people least likely to abuse guns; whereas Constitutional Carry will have the antis screaming "let any incompetent idiot carry a loaded gun?!?"- an argument that many fence sitters will buy.

My suggestions would be: (1). A state constitution recognition of RTKABA, and (2). Make the permit process less onerous, chiefly by reducing the ridiculously high fees. (3). Lift the state ban on NFA items- the federal guidelines are already strict enough.

In short, I worry that Constitutional Carry is pursuing a principle at the expense of concrete achievements.

[bstrawse]

While Constitutional Carry would be ideal, I have my doubts about pursuing it being the best political strategy.

First, since Minnesota has no state constitutional protection for owning and carrying firearms, the "Constitutional" part would be 2nd Amendment- and although the Supreme Court has ruled that a state cannot flatly ban carry, the appeals it has declined to hear suggest that it does not want to forbid states from regulating firearms. In other words, "Constitutional" carry would be legislative, not judicial in basis- and what the legislature can give it can take away.

Second, the requirements of permit carry allow firearms proponents to silence the critics of carry by pointing out that the permit process selects for the people least likely to abuse guns; whereas Constitutional Carry will have the antis screaming "let any incompetent idiot carry a loaded gun?!?"- an argument that many fence sitters will buy.

My suggestions would be: (1). A state constitution recognition of RTKABA, and (2). Make the permit process less onerous, chiefly by reducing the ridiculously high fees. (3). Lift the state ban on NFA items- the federal guidelines are already strict enough.

In short, I worry that Constitutional Carry is pursuing a principle at the expense of concrete achievements.

It's one of a number of legislative priorities for the 2015 & 2016 sessions - it's not the only one. Others include the RKBA amendment and the first step in eliminating the state ban on NFA items. Fees are being addressed as well, it's just not listed on our top legislative priorities - but I think you'll like what you'll see with this.

Bryan

[atomic41]

While Constitutional Carry would be ideal, I have my doubts about pursuing it being the best political strategy.

First, since Minnesota has no state constitutional protection for owning and carrying firearms, the "Constitutional" part would be 2nd Amendment- and although the Supreme Court has ruled that a state cannot flatly ban carry, the appeals it has declined to hear suggest that it does not want to forbid states from regulating firearms. In other words, "Constitutional" carry would be legislative, not judicial in basis- and what the legislature can give it can take away.

Second, the requirements of permit carry allow firearms proponents to silence the critics of carry by pointing out that the permit process selects for the people least likely to abuse guns; whereas Constitutional Carry will have the antis screaming "let any incompetent idiot carry a loaded gun?!?"- an argument that many fence sitters will buy.

My suggestions would be: (1). A state constitution recognition of RTKABA, and (2). Make the permit process less onerous, chiefly by reducing the ridiculously high fees. (3). Lift the state ban on NFA items- the federal guidelines are already strict enough.

In short, I worry that Constitutional Carry is pursuing a principle at the expense of concrete achievements.

It's one of a number of legislative priorities for the 2015 & 2016 sessions - it's not the only one. Others include the RKBA amendment and the first step in eliminating the state ban on NFA items. Fees are being addressed as well, it's just not listed on our top legislative priorities - but I think you'll like what you'll see with this.

Bryan

Awesome news! Thanks

[Spartan]

Kurt Daudt was at my BPOU convention today nothing in Gun rights .... Downey was there also ... the GOP is still grasping straws about how to build grass roots. These two are ok but ..... the same old needs upgrading

[bstrawse]

Kurt Daudt was at my BPOU convention today nothing in Gun rights .... Downey was there also ... the GOP is still grasping straws about how to build grass roots. These two are ok but ..... the same old needs upgrading

Did anyone ask them?
b