Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 10:38 pm

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




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 HF180 Barring Cary By Nonlicensed Peace Officers 
Author Message
 Post subject: HF180 Barring Cary By Nonlicensed Peace Officers
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:36 pm 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
I thought this one was mentioned on here somewhere before but I couldn't find it. Anyhow, it is being discussed in committee this Thursday.

February 26, 2009
1:00 PM
Committee: Public Safety Policy and Oversight
Room: 10 State Office Building

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... ssion=ls86

Quote:
<div class="xtend">


<div class="xtend_ce"><a id="pl.1.1"></a> 1.1 A bill for an act<br />

</div><a id="pl.1.2"></a> 1.2 relating to public safety; establishing penalty for heads of law enforcement <br />

<a id="pl.1.3"></a> 1.3 agencies who allow employees and agents who are nonlicensed peace officers to <br />
<a id="pl.1.4"></a> 1.4 carry a firearm;amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 626.84, subdivision <br />
<a id="pl.1.5"></a> 1.5 2.<br />
<a id="pl.1.6"></a> 1.6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:<br />
<br />

<a id="bill.0.1.0"></a><a id="pl.1.7"></a> 1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 626.84, subdivision 2, is amended to read:<br />
<a id="pl.1.8"></a> 1.8 Subd. 2. <b>Scope.</b> <u>(a) </u>Notwithstanding sections
<statute_ref>12.03, subdivision 4</statute_ref>,
<statute_ref>12.25</statute_ref>, or any <br />
<a id="pl.1.9"></a> 1.9 other law to the contrary, no individual employed or acting as an agent of any political <br />

<a id="pl.1.10"></a> 1.10 subdivision shall be authorized to carry a firearm when on duty unless the individual <br />
<a id="pl.1.11"></a> 1.11 has been licensed under sections
<statute_ref>626.84</statute_ref> to
<statute_ref>626.863</statute_ref>. Nothing herein shall be construed <br />
<a id="pl.1.12"></a> 1.12 as requiring licensure of a security guard as that term is defined in section
<statute_ref>626.88, <br />

<a id="pl.1.13"></a> 1.13 subdivision 1
</statute_ref>, paragraph (c). <br />
<a id="pl.1.14"></a> 1.14 <u>(b) The board shall suspend for a minimum of 30 days the license of the head of a </u><br />
<a id="pl.1.15"></a> 1.15 <u>law enforcement agency who allows an unlicensed employee or agent of the agency to </u><br />
<a id="pl.1.16"></a> 1.16 <u>carry a firearm while on duty. The board shall investigate violations of this subdivision </u><br />

<a id="pl.1.17"></a> 1.17 <u>following the procedures set forth in section 214.10, except that the board shall not direct </u><br />
<a id="pl.1.18"></a> 1.18 <u>the appropriate law enforcement agency, as defined in section 214.10, subdivision 13, to </u><br />
<a id="pl.1.19"></a> 1.19 <u>conduct the initial investigation as required under section 214.10, subdivision 10. The </u><br />
<a id="pl.1.20"></a> 1.20 <u>board shall perform all phases of investigations of violations of this subdivision.</u><br />
<a id="pl.1.21"></a> 1.21 <u><b>EFFECTIVE DATE.</b></u><u>This section is effective August 1, 2009, and applies to </u><br />

<a id="pl.1.22"></a> 1.22 <u>violations committed on or after that date.</u><br />

</div>


_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:26 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:12 pm
Posts: 289
The headline to this thread is a bit misleading, the bill is punish police chiefs/sheriffs who allow people employed by them who are not licensed peace officers carry firearms, like say the chief's secretary.

So this doesn't affect those of us who are not the chief law enforcement officer for a public safety agency. It also appears to be a solution in search of a problem, but then I'm not a member of the union who I suspect got this bill introduced.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:28 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
Wouldn't this mean that any governmental worker (city, county, state) be immediately restricted from carrying while on duty?

Quote:
1.9 other law to the contrary, no individual employed or acting as an agent of any political

1.10 subdivision shall be authorized to carry a firearm when on duty unless the individual


That would also apparently restrict any elected official, board or commission member appointed by a political entity, and volunteers lending their time to anything sponsored by a political entity. Sounds pretty far-reaching... Or maybe I misunderstand?

BB


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:09 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:16 am
Posts: 364
Location: Minneapolis, MN
I smell the police union on this. They want to ensure that reserve officers and other police employees cannot be armed.

Of course, I would think the rank-and-file cops would want their available backup to be able to grab the shotgun or AR15 out of the car for a felony call, but hey, who am I to question the union?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:57 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
This is an overreaching bill, and needs to be fought.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:36 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Andrew Rothman wrote:
This is an overreaching bill, and needs to be fought.
Yup, despite the temptation to ignore it. It's clearly a reaction to Fletcher letting his buddy -- the one who is awaiting sentencing -- play cop.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:59 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Fubar wrote:
The headline to this thread is a bit misleading, the bill is punish police chiefs/sheriffs who allow people employed by them who are not licensed peace officers carry firearms, like say the chief's secretary.

So this doesn't affect those of us who are not the chief law enforcement officer for a public safety agency. It also appears to be a solution in search of a problem, but then I'm not a member of the union who I suspect got this bill introduced.


I disagree. This bill will restrict public employees from carrying. What if the secretary in your example has a P2C under 624.714?

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:03 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
would adding "in the scope of their employment" and a specific exemption for Persons with Carry permits undrr 624.714 help?

Not like we'll get that ...

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:18 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Mosin wrote:
Fubar wrote:
The headline to this thread is a bit misleading, the bill is punish police chiefs/sheriffs who allow people employed by them who are not licensed peace officers carry firearms, like say the chief's secretary.

So this doesn't affect those of us who are not the chief law enforcement officer for a public safety agency. It also appears to be a solution in search of a problem, but then I'm not a member of the union who I suspect got this bill introduced.


I disagree. This bill will restrict public employees from carrying. What if the secretary in your example has a P2C under 624.714?
Yup. That seems a high price to pay for slapping Fletcher's wrist. I'm unwilling for some secretary in some government agency to pay that price.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:10 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:09 am
Posts: 983
Location: Brewster
IMO we should fight against any law abiding citizen have their second amendment rights violated, whether they have a permit or not, whether they are a cop, garbage man, or funeral director. Special people are people too. They deserve to exercise their basic human right of self protection no matter what they do for a living or who they work for IMO.

_________________
Professional Firearms Training. LLC.
http://www.mngunclass.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:46 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Proposed amendment

Image

I wonder how this would affect Minnesota Statue 629.30
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... tat.629.30

Quote:
629.30 ARRESTS; BY WHOM MADE; AIDING OFFICER.
Subdivision 1.Definition.

Arrest means taking a person into custody that the person may be held to answer for a public offense. "Arrest" includes actually restraining a person or taking into custody a person who submits.
Subd. 2.Who may arrest.

An arrest may be made:

(1) by a peace officer under a warrant;

(2) by a peace officer without a warrant;

(3) by an officer in the United States Customs and Border Protection or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services without a warrant;

(4) by a private person.

A private person shall aid a peace officer in executing a warrant when requested to do so by the officer.
History:

(10566) RL s 5225; 1981 c 108 s 1; 1985 c 265 art 10 s 1; 2007 c 13 art 1 s 25

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:52 am 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
I think I'm answering my own question. 629.30 isn't reserved only to peace officers so HF180 in it's current form would have no affect on it.

Maybe?

I asked Paymar anyhow to see what he thinks.

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:26 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:20 pm
Posts: 117
Location: Fairmont, Minnesota
Mosin wrote:
I asked Paymar anyhow to see what he thinks.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

_________________
Jay Maynard, the Tron Guy


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:15 pm 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Paymar's response

Quote:
I discussed this with staff. As you know, citizen arrests are authorized pursuant to section 629.37 under the following circumstances:

629.37 WHEN PRIVATE PERSON MAY MAKE ARREST.
A private person may arrest another:

(1) for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;

(2) when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or

(3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

My bill deals with two situations. One, the case where a person impersonates an officer. That is not the case in valid citizen arrests. Two, the case were a person performs or attempts to perform an act that is reserved to law enforcement. As you can see from section 629.37, arresting a person is not "reserved" to law enforcement as the statute permits citizens to make arrests in certain cases. It should also be noted that if there were a conflict between the statute that I am amending (609.863) and the right to make a citizen's arrest, that conflict would have been ongoing for years as the language that has been on the books for years.

Let me know if you still have questions.

Best,

Rep Michael Paymar


I can't think of any objection I have with this bill now as written.

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:56 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:12 pm
Posts: 289
BigBlue wrote:
Wouldn't this mean that any governmental worker (city, county, state) be immediately restricted from carrying while on duty?

While I don't have any quotable facts to support my position, this is the internet so I'm going to assume that doesn't really matter. I'd wager that the vast majority of government workers are already forbidden from carry weapons through "employee conduct codes" and other various HR policies.

I have a copy of one handbook that on one page states non-police city employees found carrying a weapon will be immediately terminated. A few pages later deals with what to if a law-abiding citizen legally carries a weapon into city hall (to summarize: piss pants, call police).

I'm against this bill for the same reasons already listed (I know shocking, side with the smart people). Unfortunately even if this bill doesn't become law, the vast majority of government employees still won't be able to carry firearms while at work.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group