Ramsey judge won't set aside conceal carry ruling
BY MARIE McCAIN
Pioneer Press
The Ramsey County District judge who declared Minnesota's "conceal and carry" law as unconstitutional has rejected a request to leave the law in place while his ruling is appealed.
In an order filed today, Judge John T. Finley denied the request made by lawyers with the state attorney general's office.
Finley's ruling means those who seek a permit to carry a handgun will have to do so under the requirements of Minnesota's old permit law, which gives county sheriff's and chiefs of police greater discretion when deciding who gets a permit.
Monday's action is the latest in a series of rulings on the controversial law.
Last week, the state Supreme Court rejected a request from the state attorney general's office to consider the case early.
The state attorney general's office asked for the direct review as part of its appeals filed after the July 13 ruling by Finley. The Minnesota Court of Appeals will hear the case, but arguments may not take place until later this year.
More than 30 religious and charitable organizations, along with the city of Minneapolis, sued the state to have the controversial law struck down. They argued that it infringed on their rights to ban guns from their properties.
They also contended that the Legislature approved the measure in an improper way.
Finley agreed that the passage of the law violated the single-subject rule of the state constitution. The measure had been attached to a technical bill benefiting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
After the concealed carry law was overturned, Minnesota's old handgun permit law went back into effect.
In asking Finley to put aside his ruling while it's on appeal, the state argued the law provided money that helped law enforcement agencies offset the cost of background checks for permit seekers. The state also argued that it shortened the amount of time - from 30 days to 21 days - officials have to either deny or grant a permit.
Opponents of the law believe the former statute doesn't inhibit their property rights or religious freedoms. They also argued that the new law did little to prohibit permits for those who should not carry a handgun.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/9474271.htmRamsey
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
