Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

MN PTC History
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12654		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:  MN PTC History
Anybody willing to post a Minnesota history lesson?

What led to the requirement to have a permit to carry a gun in MN?
Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:36 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm guessing this happened in the 1920s, much the same as other states, in response to the rise in gang activities sparked by prohibition.
Author:  kimberman [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:12 am ]
Post subject: 
It happened in 1974.

DFL AG Warren Spannus led the charge in the years following the JFK/RFK assassinations ca. 1968 as the nation's anti-gun Democrats placed blame for these murders on the inanimate object used and the millions of innocent (but politically inactive) gun owners.

Like Prohibition in the 1920's, the Democrats sought to control HUMAN behavior by regulating and banning THINGS. They never learn.

The original Spannus bill would have brought New Jersey's anti-gun laws to Minnesota. That's why our law looks so much like NJ's but very watered down. The pro-gun side, led in those days by the NRA, did a great job of reducing the effect of the proposal. As usual when anti-gun laws first get moving, the 1974 bill passed by merely 2 votes, IIRC, including some liberal Republicans and opposed by conservative Range Democrats.

Like the California AW Ban, ultimately it was spineless REPUBLICANS who cast the key votes that brought gun control to Minnesota. Gun control which, BTW, has had no negative effect on crime in Minnesota (as is always the case). This is why the NRA and GOCRA see the gun issue as NON-partisan. Both organizations like to support pro-gun Democrats and Republicans alike.
Author:  jdege [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:03 am ]
Post subject: 
kimberman wrote:
It happened in 1974.

If I remember correctly, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and a number of other cities had bans and/or permitting systems in place prior to 1974. So Minnesota wasn't a Vermont-carry paradise in 1973.
Author:  mnmike59 [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 
kimberman wrote:

the Democrats sought to control HUMAN behavior by regulating and banning THINGS. They never learn.



That is a huge factual statement! I never really looked at it that way. But it is so true.
Author:  chunkstyle [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:47 am ]
Post subject: 
kimberman wrote:

Like Prohibition in the 1920's, the Democrats sought to control HUMAN behavior by regulating and banning THINGS. They never learn.


Except it was Republicans who led the charge against alcohol in the 1920's, not the Democrats. Prohibition was seen as a way to control the behavior of recent-immigrant communities, who largely voted Democratic. It wasn't until the GOP became ascendant in the aftermath of WWI that Prohibition became politically feasible. When the Democrats returned to power in the Depression, Prohibition went away.

At least, that's how it played out this side of the Mason-Dixon. It was different in the South, of course, as whites (who were Democrats) wanted Prohibition to control blacks (who were GOP, at least insofar as they could vote at all).

It wasn't about booze, it was about control. Likewise with guns, in the present day.
Author:  ree [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:17 am ]
Post subject: 
This documentsummarizes what and when.
Author:  jdege [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:48 am ]
Post subject: 
ree wrote:
This documentsummarizes what and when.

From that doc:
Quote:
The Minnesota Supreme Court upholds the denial, actually admitting that discretion in determining a "personal safety hazard is obviously intended to restrict the class of person entitled to a carry permit." This gives legal sanction to future abuses.

The doc cites the Atkinson case, which is available online:
http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/docs/atkinson.pdf

But the quoted language was a cite to an earlier case:
Quote:
On two occasions we have articulated the purpose of the handgun permit statute. In Blore v. Mossey, 311 Minn. 288, 249 N.W.2d 447 (1976), we rejected plaintiff's argument that because, when carrying a pistol under circumstances where no permit is necessary, he was always subject to the "hazard" that a police officer might doubt his word and arrest him, he had a "personal safety hazard" justifying the grant of a permit. Under that logic, everyone would be entitled to a permit, the wrong result because "(t)he obvious intent of (the 'personal safety hazard' requirement) is to restrict the class of persons entitled to permits." Id. at 290, 249 N.W.2d at 448.

I cannot find Blore v. Mossey online.
Author:  onefifty [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:07 am ]
Post subject: 
ree wrote:
This documentsummarizes what and when.
That is a great document, thank you for posting it. It gives the history from 1974 through 2003. Can anyone shed light on the post 2003 history? Wasn't there an assault on the MCPPA by some Lutheran church in Edina? Thanks to the OP for the thread.
Author:  chunkstyle [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
onefifty wrote:
ree wrote:
This documentsummarizes what and when.
That is a great document, thank you for posting it. It gives the history from 1974 through 2003. Can anyone shed light on the post 2003 history? Wasn't there an assault on the MCPPA by some Lutheran church in Edina? Thanks to the OP for the thread.


You could search THIS site for the scoop on that...
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Thanks for the history lesson!

I really liked this:
ree wrote:
This documentsummarizes what and when.
Author:  joelr [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yup. Typical Alfred: comprehensive, complete, cool.
Author:  realtor_packing_heat [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
That was a great read!

Just took these pics of Pawlenty signing the bill out of there frames and scanned them . (The last one would not fit completely on the scanner).

Not to brag or anything ... but my wife is in all of these pics :D

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/vV-0emOV8iZeVYE8LHcdew?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_xmlqorf-Apw/SfaTMDgwx5I/AAAAAAAACtU/bA9nwHvkI_8/s800/ccr21.jpg" /></a>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/PFTNGb7-2r3mzWwuhupclw?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_xmlqorf-Apw/SfaT1W19A-I/AAAAAAAACt0/oSUPFnOlBdc/s800/ccr3.jpg" /></a>



<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/5KuZktw6RCh5jDl8ijVMqQ?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_xmlqorf-Apw/SfaVuJuxChI/AAAAAAAACuU/01_RsIrLyXE/s800/ccr4.jpg" /></a>
Author:  12smile [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Your post is dated April 28...isn't that the date the bill was passed / signed and it went into effect May 29?

I use a little hyperbole in describing the passage / signing of the MCPPA of 2003 as "After the legislature passed it... Pawlenty signed it while the ink was still wet"

Did he actually sign the bill at the earliest possible moment that he could...as soon as the bill was printed / published???

I'm guessing the law would take effect 30 days after signature and the Governor had 30 days to sign it ....therefore by signing it immediately...the MCPPA of 2003 took effect 30 days earlier than it could have.

Correct? or Urban Legend ?
Author:  joelr [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:59 am ]
Post subject: 
In 2003, the governor did sign the bill right away; it took effect thirty days later.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/