|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MN: Man Cited For Carrying AK-47 Now Suing City, Says Rights Violated
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Tyler Gottwalt is now suing the city of St. Cloud. According to the lawsuit, Gottwalt was walking in the city on November 17, 2014 with a rifle on his back. Police confronted him and ultimately he was cited for carrying his weapon in public, but Gottwalt's lawyer says the St. Cloud ordinance is in conflict with both state statute and the second amendment.
"When a state statute preempts any other statute, including ordinances, that state statute is supreme," said Attorney Kenneth Udoibok.
Gottwalt said he expected police to stop him but only to see his permit.
"I open carry my handguns," he said Thursday. "I've refrained from that with rifles now."
|
| Comment by:
jdege
(5/6/2016)
|
1. The carry permit does allow carry of long guns. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.7181
2. And the state preemption statute covers all firearms. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=471.633 |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
