Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Pawlenty: the statute says, "Shall"

Quote:

Subd. 16.Recognition of permits from other states.
(a) The commissioner must annually establish and publish a list of other states that have laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that are not substantially similar to this section. The list must be available on the Internet. A person holding a carry permit from a state not on the list may use the license or permit in this state subject to the rights, privileges, and requirements of this section.

Author:	ree [ Wed May 20, 2009 11:39 am ]
Post subject:	Pawlenty: the statute says, "Shall"
Yesterday, Pawlenty gave a press conference about his plans for unallotment. The recording is here. A couple minutes in he has Q&A. Here is my transcription of the first Q&A: <ul><b>Q:</b> Are there any concerns that the situation of un-allotment could be a be careful what you wish for situation; that it could be politically challenging or even detrimental? <b>Pawlenty:</b> Well, there's no question it's going to be challenging, but it's not an option. It's a duty. The unallotment statute says, "shall." This is a legal duty and responsibility of the governor. And so once it's determined that we have a budget shortfall the budget must be balanced, and the unallotment statute and the legal requirements demand that I fulfill that duty and I will. Will it be easy? No. But it's a necessary duty under these circumstances and I'm going to fulfill it.</ul> I took this as an opportunity to remind him that, per his own sentiment, he should demand his appointed Public Safety Commissioner should fulfill his duty as specified under MN 624.714 Subd 16 (a). It's not an option for Campion. It's his duty. The statute says, "must." Quote: Subd. 16.Recognition of permits from other states. (a) The commissioner must annually establish and publish a list of other states that have laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that are not substantially similar to this section. The list must be available on the Internet. A person holding a carry permit from a state not on the list may use the license or permit in this state subject to the rights, privileges, and requirements of this section. Perhaps others want to use his own words to remind him what should be done on reciprocity.

Author:	joelr [ Wed May 20, 2009 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Great idea. I've sent my email.

Author:	SultanOfBrunei [ Wed May 20, 2009 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Nice work!

Author:	bc2007 [ Sat May 23, 2009 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:	must versus shall
The whole must versus shall thing always troubled me. As a matter of legal construction, must and shall are very different. Must is like, one ought to do something at some point. Shall is like, you will do this and get on it quick. I still don't believe my professors.

Author:	mnmike59 [ Sat May 23, 2009 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Someone did some research. Nice job!

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

Pawlenty: the statute says, "Shall" http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12956	Page 1 of 1

Author:	kimberman [ Sat May 23, 2009 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:
"Must" is a MORE imperative term than shall. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Supreme Court has, on occasion, interpreted "shall" to mean "may" (i.e., discretionary).

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/