When good concepts go bad
KABA reports that the concealed carry law in Minnesota was ruled unconstitutional:
“Minnesota’s conceal and carry gun law was declared unconstitutional today by a Ramsey County District judge.”
“Ruling in a lawsuit brought by several churches, Judge John Finley wrote in his decision that it was unconstitutional for the 2002 Legislature to bundle the conceal and carry gun language with a ‘totally unrelated bill relating to the Department of Natural Resources.’ ”
“He said the state Constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject.”
“Minneapolis attorney David Lillehaug, who represented Adath Jeshurun Congregation in challenging the gun law, said Finley ruled that passage of Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2002 … was ‘contrary to Minnesota’s tradition of open government.'”
The decision is here. I like the concept that laws shouldn’t be bundled together but this is clearly a case of using this concept as an excuse to get rid of a law one doesn’t agree with. After all, is every law that was bundled with other laws now void in Minnesota? I tend to doubt it. One hell of a legal precedent, though.
Bruce Kraft opines in the comments at KABA that:
According to a couple of lawyers I know, this was a lousily written and reasoned decision. For instance, Judge Finley said there were no committee hearings on the bill, but according to information given to him by the plaintiff there were no les than 5 committee hearings. He complains about lack of debate, but there were 5 hours of debate in the House and 8 hours of debate (an all time record) in the Senate.(sic)
July 14th, 2004 at 1:53 pm
Regardless of the merits of the ruling, it sounds Minnesota has a weird constitution. California has a similar rule for ballot initiatives, but until now, I’d never heard of any state imposing such a restriction on the legislature.