Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 2:28 am

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.  [ 9 posts ] 
 [MN Leg] HF 93 
Author Message
 Post subject: [MN Leg] HF 93
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:40 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:18 am
Posts: 1086
Location: Anoka, MN
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0093.0.html&session=ls85

Quote:
H.F. No. 93, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008) Posted on Jan 11, 2007

1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to government data practices; providing for parole and probation
1.3 authorities to have access to certain records; amending Minnesota Statutes 2006,
1.4 section 624.714, by adding a subdivision.
1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 624.714, is amended by adding a
1.7 subdivision to read:
1.8 Subd. 14a. Parole and probation authority access to records. Parole and
1.9 probation authorities must be given access to records or data collected, made, or held
1.10 under this section concerning any applicant or permit holder who is a defendant, parolee,
1.11 or probationer of a district court.


Please tell me Kommrade Mullery how did they get the permit to begin with? Are there any cases of where a parolee got a permit or a sherrif/DA failed to revoke it? Sounds like another case of mental masterbation.

_________________
"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:20 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
My guess is that he is trying to "protect" parole officers from their clients who may legally be eligible to have a permit.

Mullery is noted for being a classic "do-nothing" busy-body.

I can sort-of see where a parole officer might be better off knowing if his client has a permit-to-carry.

I'd gladly give him this piece of legislation if they'd take schools off the list of prohibited places to carry.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:51 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
He's not stupid.

When the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association agreed several years ago to allow them to "mine" the hunting license lists (something I thought passed 2 or 3 years ago), the expansion possibilities for the policy were clear if you thought about it.

Anything that amends section 624.714 imperils the entire carry statute.


Last edited by kimberman on Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:54 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
DeanC wrote:
I can sort-of see where a parole officer might be better off knowing if his client has a permit-to-carry.

I'd gladly give him this piece of legislation if they'd take schools off the list of prohibited places to carry.



Purely a smoke screen another false safety issue, a "for the children" type of distraction. Do not compromise and give away seemingly "little" any things.

It's kind of like leggos, you start off with a pile of disconnected pieces, then suddenly you have a big fortress.............. :roll:

Image


Last edited by hammAR on Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:03 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am
Posts: 3752
Location: East Suburbs
This is a non-issue from 624.714.

Quote:
Subd. 8. Permit to carry voided. (a) The permit to carry is void at the time that the holder
becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, in which event the holder must return the
permit card to the issuing sheriff within five business days after the holder knows or should know
that the holder is a prohibited person. If the sheriff has knowledge that a permit is void under
this paragraph, the sheriff must give notice to the permit holder in writing in the same manner as
a denial.
Failure of the holder to return the permit within the five days is a gross misdemeanor
unless the court finds that the circumstances or the physical or mental condition of the permit
holder prevented the holder from complying with the return requirement.
(b) When a permit holder is convicted of an offense that prohibits the permit holder from
possessing a firearm, the court must take possession of the permit, if it is available, and send it
to the issuing sheriff.
(c) The sheriff of the county where the application was submitted, or of the county of the
permit holder's current residence, may file a petition with the district court therein, for an order
revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3).
An order shall be issued only if the sheriff meets the burden of proof and criteria set forth in
subdivision 12. If the court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney fees.
(d) A permit revocation must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff.
Subd. 8a. Prosecutor's duty. Whenever a person is charged with an offense that would,
upon conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney must
ascertain whether the person is a permit holder under this section. If the person is a permit holder,
the prosecutor must notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a prohibiting
offense. The prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of the case.

_________________
Srigs

Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:09 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 1803
Location: Woodbury
I CRY F NG BULLSHIT
This is'nt an ammendment, he wants to change all these aspects of the law

Quote:
Subd. 8. Permit to carry voided. (a) The permit to
carry is void at the time that the holder becomes prohibited by
law from possessing a firearm, in which event the holder must
return the permit card to the issuing sheriff within five
business days after the holder knows or should know that the
holder is a prohibited person.
If the sheriff has knowledge
that a permit is void under this paragraph, the sheriff must
give notice to the permit holder in writing in the same manner
as a denial. Failure of the holder to return the permit within
the five days is a gross misdemeanor unless the court finds that
the circumstances or the physical or mental condition of the
permit holder prevented the holder from complying with the
return requirement.

(b) When a permit holder is convicted of an offense that
prohibits the permit holder from possessing a firearm, the court
must take possession of the permit, if it is available, and send
it to the issuing sheriff.

(c) The sheriff of the county where the application was
submitted, or of the county of the permit holder's current
residence, may file a petition with the district court therein,
for an order revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth
in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3). An order shall be
issued only if the sheriff meets the burden of proof and
criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the court denies the
petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney fees.

(d) A permit revocation must be promptly reported to the
issuing sheriff.

Subd. 8a. Prosecutor's duty. Whenever a person is
charged with an offense that would, upon conviction, prohibit
the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney
must ascertain whether the person is a permit holder under this
section. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor must
notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with
a prohibiting offense. The prosecutor must also notify the
sheriff of the final disposition of the case.


Quote:
Subd. 12a. Suspension as condition of release. The
district court may order suspension of the application process
for a permit or suspend the permit of a permit holder as a
condition of release pursuant to the same criteria as the
surrender of firearms under section 629.715. A permit
suspension must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff. If
the permit holder has an out-of-state permit recognized under
subdivision 16, the court must promptly report the suspension to
the commissioner for inclusion solely in the database under
subdivision 15, paragraph (a).


Quote:
Subd. 14. Records. (a) A sheriff must not maintain
records or data collected, made, or held under this section
concerning any applicant or permit holder that are not necessary
under this section to support a permit that is outstanding or
eligible for renewal under subdivision 7, paragraph (b).
Notwithstanding section 138.163, sheriffs must completely purge
all files and databases by March 1 of each year to delete all
information collected under this section concerning all persons
who are no longer current permit holders or currently eligible
to renew their permit.


(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to records or data
concerning an applicant or permit holder who has had a permit
denied or revoked under the criteria established in subdivision
2, paragraph (b), clause (1), or subdivision 6, paragraph (a),
clause (3), for a period of six years from the date of the
denial or revocation.


Subd. 15. Commissioner; contracts; database. (a) The
commissioner must maintain an automated database of persons
authorized to carry pistols under this section that is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week, only to law enforcement
agencies, including prosecutors carrying out their duties under
subdivision 8a, to verify the validity of a permit.


(b) The commissioner may maintain a separate automated
database of denied applications for permits to carry and of
revoked permits that is available only to sheriffs performing
their duties under this section containing the date of, the
statutory basis for, and the initiating agency for any permit
application denied or permit revoked for a period of six years
from the date of the denial or revocation.


As for the probation officer needing to know..........if the sheriff and the prosecuting atty do there job, fine, OTHERWISE IT'S NONE OF THEIR F NG BUSINESS!!
edit 1/18/07 once by Brit for expletives, but not the passion with which they were written


Last edited by A Brit in MN on Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:18 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
Deleted by author....


Last edited by hammAR on Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:26 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
Srigs wrote:
This is a non-issue from 624.714.


But this is an issue, it is one way to disassemble 624.714 without directly attacking it. Pick it apart a piece at a time with seemingly non-issues then surround it with a moat and add lots of confusion....

Quote:
Subd. 15. Commissioner; contracts; database. (a) The
commissioner must maintain an automated database of persons
authorized to carry pistols under this section that is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week, only to law enforcement
agencies, including prosecutors carrying out their duties under
subdivision 8a, to verify the validity of a permit.


This will only be valid until the media presses for "Freedom of Information Act" and is supported by an anti Judge......


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:45 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 402
Location: Saint Paul
Alone, it seems a non-issue, redundant POS piece of legislation. BFD. How long till all of these seemingly useless bits gets tossed into an omnibus act with some really juicy bits and few things like enhanced sex offender penalties to make it veritable suicide to vote against? Next question? Can they be held off for the renewal surge in '08? That buys a large group of folks 5 years in many scenarios.

_________________
Mike


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

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 18 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