The proposed amendment to the MN Constitution (HR 775 & SR 669) which I fully support has been tabled by the antis to make sure they never get on the ballot where the good citizens of the State could vote on them -
I mean after all, it might pass!

My question is: MN Statute 624.714 (which most people on here are quite familiar with) states (in part) in Subd. 22: "The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms" So don't we already have a statutory individual right to keep and bear arms?

I'm not a legal scholar. But is the difference that the statute could be changed, amended, or repealed whereas a Constitutional Amendment
would be much more permanent and binding?

Could someone (Kimberman?) please clarify what our rights are presently and how the Constitutional Amendment would strengthen them.

Sure sounds to me like you're onto something.....seems like the legislature has already decided that Minnesotans have the right to bear arms. Its surprising actually.....

My own take -- and I'm very interested in Kimberman's -- is that any political party that pushes this reaps benefits, at the cost of any other political party that doesn't.

How do we have the bill move forward? Maybe after the SCOTUS decision.

The bill won't go forward this year, because the DFL is in control, and will view this as as a "Get out the Replubican Vote" campaign.

To Amend the State Constitution there needs to be a popular vote of the people. Lots of people will come out just to vote for a 2A Amendment if that gets on the ballot. But they'll also vote for the candidates running for office and 2A supporters are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. So the DFL will stall this, even though most of them probably support a 2A Amendment.

It would be nice to have State Constitutional protection for 2A, rather than have to rely on whatever SCOTUS decides applies to States.

In a word, yes. Minnesota is one of the few states that doesn't have some form of state constitutional protection for the right to bear arms.

U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amdt.:

Proposed MN Constitutional Amendment:

There are some obvious differences in the language of the two provisions. Amending the MN Constitution with the above language would probably make it much more difficult for the police to ban or confiscate guns at the whim of the legislature.

Someone can correct me, but I don't think MN Statute 624.714, Subd. 22 interpreting the 2nd Amdt., is going to get you very far if you're in court challenging a MN gun regulation that you've been accused of violating.

That's my take also, MN Constitutional guarantee trumps a MN statue and then some.

I hope it comes to pass so we can vote on it in November!

Not a chance with the DFL in control of both chambers of the Legislature.

One thing we CAN vote on this November is who will be in charge of the Legislature next year

That looks like it was intentionally modeled on the first part of the RKBA provision in the Pennsylvania dissent. I think we should include the second part:

Hi jdege, Please help me understand the significance of the last part in bold type.

Thanks, Scott