strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley  ©copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________________________

“I have no doubt that chapstick is being widely used today by those we elected in the Minnesota legislature, in preparation for Monday’s lovefest with Obama .  Maybe someone will think to pass out knee pads, also.”

_________________________________________________________________________

In anticipation of the appearance of King Obama on Monday, February 4th, four DFL’ers here in Minnesota submitted their [coincidentally identical to Obama’s]  proposed legislation that infringes on the 2nd Amendment.  Not only have these people decided that they are not constrained by the Constitution for the United States, Supreme Court rulings or any other lawful obstacle to infringing on the 2nd, they also seemGun-Control-Works-Pictures-e1342051099803 to have forgotten the oath they swore upon taking office declaring that they would defend that Constitution.

Republicans had this same selective amnesia during the Bush/Cheney Crime Administration and worked tirelessly to strike down not only our rights, but the Constitution in total.

Sec. 8. Oath of office.

Each member and officer of the legislature before entering upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability.

Apparently, judgment and ability is in short supply in the Minnesota House and Senate.  What a surprise!

SF 235: Modifying the lawful possession of firearms

This bill is on the hotlist of bills in Minnesota and is an ex post facto law.

Ron Latz, the DFL senator from District 46, appears to have no knowledge whatsoever about the 2nd Amendment or previous SCOTUS rulings or even the state constitution and also appears to be suffering from selective amnesia with regards to that oath of office he and several other DFL’er’s took.

Gun control state by state

On Monday, Obama is to appear in what is billed as a public meeting (that really isn’t unless you support his desires) in the Minnesota legislature.  Once there, his mere presence will cause the bending of many legislative knees, and from this position, that great sucking sound you will hear will be the result of numerous legislative lips, both Democrat and Republican, puckering in supplication and submission as he promotes his state-by-state efforts to pass the beginnings of gun banning and confiscation. 

Obama is clearly aware that neither he, nor the jackasses in the District of Criminals, have any power or authority to tamper with the 2nd Amendment. Having possibly realized that his efforts to begin gun confiscation by limiting or infringing even minimally on the 2nd Amendment, would most likely be met with hard core legal battles, the Administration is attempting to coerce the states into passing laws that coincidentally, reflect the Administrations’ wish list.

I suppose if you can’t strike down the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms with an executive order issued from the office of the chief executive of the federal corporation, the next best thing is to get it done piecemeal within the states themselves.  The only place an executive order would have any lawful authority is in the District of Columbia, insular possessions and territories.

These proposed bills constitute ex post facto laws, strictly prohibited not only in the state Constitution, but also in the federal constitution.

HF242 + round magazine ban No grandfathering

HF243 + round magazine ban No grandfathering

Prohibition Against Ex Post Facto Laws

What is an ex post facto law?

The state is expressly prohibited from enacting an ex post facto law by article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 11 of the Minnesota Constitution.

An ex post facto law is one that (1) applies to events occurring before its enactment, and (2) disadvantages the person affected by it. The purpose of this limitation is to ensure that individuals have fair warning of legislative acts that could operate to their disadvantage.

An ex post facto law is one that has the purpose or effect of creating a new crime, increasing the

punishment for an existing crime, depriving a defendant of a defense available at the time the act

was committed, or otherwise rendering an act punishable in a different, more disadvantageous

manner than was true under the law at the time it was committed.

These proposed bills in Minnesota constitute ex post facto laws: Each takes what was formerly your right and converts it into a crime.  These proposals are in fact in conflict with the state and federal constitutions.

Sec. 11. Attainders, ex post facto laws and laws impairing contracts prohibited.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Ex post facto is an unlawful act of government.  It attempts to make what is currently your Constitutional or inalienable right, into government controlled privilege or, to criminalize your  rights.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

The Court answered this question in McDonald.

In a five-four split decision, the McDonald Court held that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is incorporated and applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia’s regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” “Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.”[5]

The law is on the side of the people in this particular case.  Not that that matters when it comes to those in government.  It is a rare occasion these days when those we have elected have any clue as to what the law is and even rarer still that they give a damn.

I have no doubt that chapstick is being widely used today by those we elected in the Minnesota legislature, in preparation for Monday’s lovefest with Obama .  Maybe someone will think to pass out knee pads, also.

___________________________________________________________________________

Resources:

HF184 – Centralized register of individuals who voluntarily wish to be ineligible to purchase firearms for a self-determined period of time maintenance and creation required; acceptance of voluntary surrender of firearms and ammunition from persons on the voluntary register and establishment of procedures for return of the firearms and ammunition upon request by chiefs of police and sheriffs mandated.

Pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapon transfer and firearm possession eligibility provisions modified, and criminal penalties provided. Requires background checks for all pistol and military style weapons. Also appears to remove the court adjudicated portion or mentally ill provisions.  Another “no evidence needed” Act.

HF242 + round magazine ban No grandfathering

HF243 + round magazine ban No grandfathering

HF238 Now a felony to carry concealed at a school instead of a misdeamor

HF239 Now a gross misdemeanor first time trespass with a gun in a “gun free zone”, felony for the second time

HF240 Mental health screening required in certain circumstances for pistol permits

HF241 AWB, 1 feature

Ex Post Facto Laws

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssexpost.pdf

Minnesota Senate Bills

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billinf.php?ls=88&billnum=205

Pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons transfers and possession eligibility; criminal penalty provisions

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billinf.php?ls=88&billnum=46

Firearms possession restoration for violent felons repeal

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billinf.php?ls=88&billnum=64

Convicted violent felons gun ownership rights restoration authorization

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billinf.php?ls=88&billnum=69

Retired peace officers firearm carry without permit authorization

MN HR 242 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0242.0.html&session=ls88

MN HR 243 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0243.0.html&session=ls88

HF 241 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF0241&ssn=0&y=2013

Minnesota Constitution https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/constitution/

McDonald http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm

Heller   http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

http://www.senate.mn/members/

About these ads