Done

IANAL but I like it a lot.

Hope the Legaleese is ok. Not my strong point.

[b]Dear Mr. Wiggins,

.......
Specifically, the portion of MN 624.714 related to exclusivity which refers to the process of issuing permits to carry firearms and constrains governmental officials from setting up procedures that vary from those spelled out in the statute.

In addition,.......


We also believe the MN DNR is indeed a Governmental Agency and they should not be allowed to setup procedures that vary from the statute just as MN state, County, and City agencies with the exception of courthouses cannot post those buildings or properties.
-----

This is petty, but I don't like the term "set up" or its variations. In the first instance I might respectfully suggest replacing "setting up" with "establishing"; and in in the second, instead of "setup", use the term "promulgate".

That IS the lawyer in me

Done Isn't it great when you have a little project to work on that you know is gonna make somebody's day miserable eventually?

While the spirit of the BILL was to define the procedures to issue permits, the LAW the BILL changed is still in there and in effect.



Here it is right here: Superceding powers. The DNR has been neutered right here. I think the DNR missed that last "OR", and thought it was maybe a "TO"?

They cannot make proceedures OR limit the exercise of carrying a pistol. Exercising a permit to carry means "To carry a pistol".

You know, if anyone will represent me for free, I will be the test case.

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. You stole fizzy lifting drinks. ... so you get nothing. You lose. Good day sir."
-Willy Wonka

Even if this letter gets us no where, it was still a lot of fun!

Dear Mr. Wiggins,

We would like try to get an official ruling on the MN State Park Carry dilemma. Currently MN Rule 6100.0800 states that all guns carried in a State Park in MN must be unloaded and in a case. MN residents who posses a valid MN Permit to Carry a pistol should then be allowed to carry in State parks under MN Statute 624.714.

Specifically, the portion of MN 624.714 related to exclusivity which refers to the process of issuing permits to carry firearms and constrains governmental officials from establishing procedures that vary from those spelled out in the statute.

In addition, MN Rule 6100.0800 notates in Subpart 1 Restrictions, (A). that one exception to the rule is "by special permit from the comissioner" as stated below implies that our Carry Permit would qualify as a "special permit from the commissioner"

Subpart 1. Restrictions.

A. While in a state park, or while in or within 200
feet of a forest recreation area, except as provided in subpart
2 or by special permit from the commissioner, it is unlawful for
a person to:

(1) possess explosives or fireworks of any kind;

(2) possess a firearm, unless the firearm is
unloaded and completely contained in a gun case expressly made
for that purpose, which is fully enclosed by being zipped,
snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, or unless
unloaded and contained in the trunk of a car with the trunk door
closed;

MN Statute 624.714 also states the following in Subd.23, Exclusivity:

Subd. 23. Exclusivity. This section sets forth the
complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance
of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No
sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official,
government employee, or other person or body acting under color
of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or
supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise
of a permit to carry.

The DNR is a govenrmental unit and by banning citizens that hold a valid MN Permit to Carry a Pistol from carrying a handgun in MN State Parks while possesing said permit they are "limiting the exercise of a permit to carry".

It is also the belief of myself and other interested parties that a Statute in MN supersedes a MN Rule, thus MN 624.714 supersedes MN Rule 6100.0800 and thus allow the carry of handguns in and about state parks by valid MN permit to carry holders.

We also believe the MN DNR is indeed a governmental agency and they can not be allowed to establish procedures that vary from the statute just as MN state, County, and City agencies with the exception of courthouses cannot post those buildings or properties.

Could you please try to clarify this issue and get back to me with your thoughts and how it should be handled. If you are unable to help with this could you please direct my request or contact me with the information of the person or agency that can help resolve this and give an official ruling, specifically an agency other than the DNR please.

Sincerely,

Jerry Durbin and interested parties of MPPA




Please add your comments and suggestions of what should be changed, ommited, or added.

Here it is right here: Superceding powers. The DNR has been neutered right here. I think the DNR missed that last "OR", and thought it was maybe a "TO"?

They cannot make proceedures OR limit the exercise of carrying a pistol. Exercising a permit to carry means "To carry a pistol".

You know, if anyone will represent me for free, I will be the test case.

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. You stole fizzy lifting drinks. ... so you get nothing. You lose. Good day sir."
-Willy Wonka[/quote]

Good catch Pak Ammended in Draft #3

It should not be Governmental Agency but "governmental agency."

Anyway, Wiggins might be the right guy for an informal phone call, but I am pretty sure that he is NOT a guy who can give us "an offocial ruling."

That goes to the Attorney General's office.

Anyway, I think that the DNR is a place to start, with the following letter.



And if that yields no fruit -- or the wrong fruit -- send it to the Attorney General 30 days later.

I have a call in to the DNR legal analyst who wrote this. Hopefully, she'll be friendly and just agree to issue a statement.

Hey, it could happen!

I vote with Andrew. Typically you need to have a statement from the agency involved and then bring that to the higher authority. I would join in the suggestion that the letter start with the DNR and go from there.

Just be prepared again for the law of unintended consequences. I think it is fairly clear from a legal perspective that the DNR is just plain wrong. They may even admit it.

Next, the anti's will whine that "even our kids can't be safe in a State Park"...leading perhaps to an amendment to the law clearly stating that St. Parks are a no-carry zone.

As a practical matter this may be no different than a test case that ended up in our favor with the same whining etc.

Based on Pakrat & Paul sounds like the DNR is the place to start. IMHO.

Go with it and see where it leads!

Typo

Yea, lowercase "Governmental Agency".
"They should not be allowed", maybe this should be "You are not allowed"
Remove the courthouse posting reference.

By removing the courthouse posting reference, I believe the letter will appear firmer. We do want to be firm and not even show that there are exceptions to the rules. Also, technically I do not believe judges have the power to ban guns. But, they make the rules for their courtrooms. So, we have to abide.

Try it and see where it gets us. I hate to be a pessimist but I wouldn't expect any cooperation from the DNR on this. My whole thought was to start at the lower level of the DPS or possibly the Commissioners office and work up to Hatch's office if necessary. As far as that goes why not attack the issue from both ends?