H.F. 415 Minnesota RKBA Ammendment
| Author |
Message |
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: H.F. 415 Minnesota RKBA Ammendment  Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:11 pm |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
 |
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
I haven't seen anything else on here about this yet.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... ssion=ls86
Quote: H.F. No. 415, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Feb 02, 2009
1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to constitutional amendments; proposing an amendment to the Minnesota
1.3Constitution, article I; providing that the right of citizens to bear arms for certain
1.4purposes is fundamental and shall not be abridged.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
1.7An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the
1.8amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read:
1.9Sec. 18. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms for the defense and security of
1.10the person, family, or home or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training
1.11is fundamental and shall not be abridged.
1.12 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
1.13The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2010 general
1.14election. The question submitted must be:
1.15"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that the right of a citizen to
1.16keep and bear arms for the defense and security of the person, family, or home or for lawful
1.17hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training is fundamental and shall not be abridged?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
|
|
Why should my God-given rights be restricted to "the defense and security of the person, family, or home or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training?"
As far as the US Constitution, the RKBA is for shutting down a tyranical gov't not for hunting, recreation OR self-defense from muggers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:41 pm |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
SultanOfBrunei wrote: Why should my God-given rights be restricted to "the defense and security of the person, family, or home or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training?"
As far as the US Constitution, the RKBA is for shutting down a tyranical gov't not for hunting, recreation OR self-defense from muggers. Of course U.S. Bill of Rights trumps the state constitution. And you are correct in that we shouldn't have to list out reasons why we should be able to KBA. However, we have seen what has happened with interpretation of 2A when activities aren't spelled out ad nauseam.
I believe 2A by focusing around militia includes PP, hunting and sport. If you are armed to be a militia you are more than armed for anything else you may need to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fyrwys
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:03 am
Posts: 118
Location: South Metro
|
Quote: As far as the US Constitution, the RKBA is for shutting down a tyranical gov't... Isn't that covered by/included in: Quote: the defense and security of the person, family, or home... ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
|
|
Yea, defense of freedom from tyranny could be covered under "defense of person, etc." I guess I am just being nit-picky. I just worry that as soon as we spell it out for X, Y, and Z, A-W are under contention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fyrwys
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
| Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:03 am
Posts: 118
Location: South Metro
|
|
Well, I agree, but if it gets to the point where one needs to employ such measures in defense of a tyrranical government (literally speaking, of course), I think whether or not it's specifically mentioned in the bill will be moot. Maybe I'm just picking nits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carbide Insert
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:19 pm |
|
| Poet Laureate |
 |
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
|
So, for the lawyerly around these parts:
If such an amendment should pass, does that mean the MNPtoC becomes a CCW, and open carry will be free from the mandatory constraints of class attendance, county shakedown $, and available for everyone to participate in who isn't a convicted felon?
_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:22 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
|
^ ^ ^ ^
SHHHHHHH! 
Last edited by SultanOfBrunei on Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:22 pm |
|
| Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
|
|
Just a hollow amendment that means nothing to the courts, like Wisconsin's?
While I like it on it's face (is that how it's said?), without further detail, it will be dismissed as meaningless if it hit the courts. People would start open carrying, and then they'll go to jail. The courts will cite our permit law, and therefore abridge the rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:26 pm |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
Fyrwys wrote: Well, I agree, but if it gets to the point where one needs to employ such measures in defense of a tyrranical government (literally speaking, of course), I think whether or not it's specifically mentioned in the bill will be moot. Maybe I'm just picking nits. Never thought of it that way. +1 In 2A they aren't granting us the right to overthrow. Just assuring that we are prepared to overthrow. Quote: Just a hollow amendment that means nothing to the courts, like Wisconsin's?
While I like it on it's face (is that how it's said?), without further detail, it will be dismissed as meaningless if it hit the courts. People would start open carrying, and then they'll go to jail. The courts will cite our permit law, and therefore abridge the rights. until it is upheld once...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:29 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
|
|
I think the amendment is a good idea. MN is one of the few states without a RKBA amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crshooter
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:13 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:15 pm
Posts: 54
|
|
Wasn't something like this supposed to be on the 2008 ballot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
|
crshooter wrote: Wasn't something like this supposed to be on the 2008 ballot? I remember something about this last year, but I think they lumped it in with a bunch of other stuff and it never got off the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:15 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
|
|
The Democratic legislature will not move on this. If this was on the 2010 ballot, it would attract more Republicans than Democrats to the polls.
Wait for Republican control of the legislature to put this on the ballot. Even then, it won't happen unless Republicans are about to lose seats. Then they'll use it to attrct new support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PocketProtector642
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:22 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am
Posts: 702
Location: St. Paulish
|
Dick Unger wrote: The Democratic legislature will not move on this. If this was on the 2010 ballot, it would attract more Republicans than Democrats to the polls.
Wait for Republican control of the legislature to put this on the ballot. Even then, it won't happen unless Republicans are about to lose seats. Then they'll use it to attrct new support. I hate it when politics messes with stuff like this.
_________________
Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters.
"If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14)
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
