Page 1 of 1

Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:33 pm
by Lumpy
Most of the states have protection for gun ownership in their state constitutions. Yet surrounded by such states are two that do not: Iowa and Minnesota. How did this come about?

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:47 pm
by Rip Van Winkle
Just a guess on my part. When the state was founded, the RTKBA was regarded as such an obvious given that it wasn't necessary to include it.

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:51 pm
by bstrawse
Rip Van Winkle wrote:Just a guess on my part. When the state was founded, the RTKBA was regarded as such an obvious given that it wasn't necessary to include it.


Probably this - I don't actually know the history why though.
b

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 8:37 am
by Holland&Holland
Why would we have needed it? Shall not be infringed probably seemed pretty straight forward at the time.

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 10:07 am
by bstrawse
Holland&Holland wrote:Why would we have needed it? Shall not be infringed probably seemed pretty straight forward at the time.


Except that leaves a bunch of things open, like:

What level of scrunity should be applied when analyzing laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment right?

Big unanswered question currently in Second Amendment jurisprudence....
b

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 10:28 am
by Lumpy
Just found out that Wisconsin only added their amendment in 1998; and Illinois' constitutional protection amounts to "guns are protected unless we pass a law that they aren't". So I guess it's a question of why upper-Midwest states chose to omit protection of gun ownership.

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 11:54 am
by Ghost
bstrawse wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:Why would we have needed it? Shall not be infringed probably seemed pretty straight forward at the time.


Except that leaves a bunch of things open, like:

What level of scrunity should be applied when analyzing laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment right?

Big unanswered question currently in Second Amendment jurisprudence....
b

Sadly so

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 12:52 pm
by daleamn
That "shall not be infringed" thing seems obvious to me too but obviously bstrawse is correct about current day "interpretations" of things.

I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court shouldn't be made up of 7th Grade English teachers instead of lawyers. Since they read English and can look up what words mean wouldn't that be all that's needed?

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2019 2:03 pm
by bstrawse
daleamn wrote:That "shall not be infringed" thing seems obvious to me too but obviously bstrawse is correct about current day "interpretations" of things.

I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court shouldn't be made up of 7th Grade English teachers instead of lawyers. Since they read English and can look up what words mean wouldn't that be all that's needed?


in my heart of hearts I know "shall not be infringed" should be enough.

Unfortunately, the courts haven't seen it that way.... :/
b

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 7:47 am
by Ironbear
daleamn wrote:I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court shouldn't be made up of 7th Grade English teachers instead of lawyers. Since they read English and can look up what words mean wouldn't that be all that's needed?

I would probably trust 7th grade English teachers of 100 years ago... but today's English teachers are probably steeped in the philosophy of anti-American progressivism...

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 9:30 am
by Rip Van Winkle
Ironbear wrote:
daleamn wrote:I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court shouldn't be made up of 7th Grade English teachers instead of lawyers. Since they read English and can look up what words mean wouldn't that be all that's needed?

I would probably trust 7th grade English teachers of 100 years ago... but today's English teachers are probably steeped in the philosophy of anti-American progressivism...

:iagree:

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 9:36 am
by Holland&Holland
bstrawse wrote:
daleamn wrote:That "shall not be infringed" thing seems obvious to me too but obviously bstrawse is correct about current day "interpretations" of things.

I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court shouldn't be made up of 7th Grade English teachers instead of lawyers. Since they read English and can look up what words mean wouldn't that be all that's needed?


in my heart of hearts I know "shall not be infringed" should be enough.

Unfortunately, the courts haven't seen it that way.... :/
b

I agree completely. I am just saying back then our fire fathers probably thought it was very straight forward.

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 12:28 pm
by Jackpine Savage
It appears some things never change. I wonder who was on the right side back then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Constitution

An election in Minnesota Territory to select Republican and Democratic delegates to a state constitutional convention was held on June 1, 1857, following passage of an enabling act by the U.S. Congress on February 26 of that year ("The Enabling Act for a State of Minnesota"). The convention was held in Saint Paul from July 13 to August 29. However, the divisions between the two political parties were so great that they each held their own separate conventions and never met together aside from five people from each party who met in a conference committee to create a document acceptable to both sides. Still, the tension was so extreme that delegates would not sign anything that had previously been signed by a member of the complementary convention.

In the end, each convention signed their own copies of the document. The two were essentially identical, but had about 300 differences in punctuation, grammar, and wording because of errors in transcription produced as copyists worked late into the night on August 28. The Republican version, written on white paper, ran 39 pages and was signed by 53 delegates, while the Democratic version, written on blue-tinged paper, was 37 pages long and had 51 signatures.

Re: Why no gun ownership protection in MN state constitution?

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 12:33 pm
by Jackpine Savage
More entertaining tidbits.

http://www.mnopedia.org/event/minnesota-constitutional-convention1857

.
.Minnesota politics in the 1850s was particularly intense, with fierce competition between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were the older, more established party. The Republicans were newer but gaining support, particularly in the northern states. Nationally and within Minnesota Territory, Republicans were calling for an end to slavery. This hotly contested issue divided the electorate and incited venomous editorials in the partisan newspapers. It was in this atmosphere that on June 1, 1857, voters throughout Minnesota Territory elected delegates to represent them at a constitutional convention.
.
.
As expected, the Compromise Committee did not always agree. Things even got physical. On August 25, prominent Democrat and former Territorial Governor Willis Gorman attacked Republican Thomas Wilson with a cane. When word of the incident reached the Republican convention, one delegate called it "a violent assault, without any just cause or provocation." Republican Galbraith clarified that the Committee only wished "simply to state the offence."