Judge rejects bid to allow guns at Minnesota State Fair

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Judge rejects bid to allow guns at Minnesota State Fair

By STEVE KARNOWSKI
August 25, 2021

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A judge has rejected a request by a gun owners group for a temporary injunction to require the Minnesota State Fair to allow permit holders to carry their pistols on the fairgrounds, ruling Wednesday that they’re unlikely to prevail as the broader case goes forward.

Ramsey County District Judge Laura Nelson ruled less than 24 hours before the State Fair opens Thursday that the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus failed to meet its burden of proof that the fair’s longstanding ban on guns violates state law or that they have sufficient legal grounds to seek relief. The group contends the ban violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and state laws governing the rights of permit holders to carry their guns in public.

Nelson pointed out in her ruling that the State Fair has banned guns since 2003, when it began posting prominent signs at the gates, and that the prohibition has been posted on the fair’s website since at least 2016, when fair officials began doing bag checks. And she noted that the fair announced plans in 2020 to start using metal detectors to enforce the ban.

But the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus didn’t sue the fair’s governing body, the Minnesota State Agricultural Society, to overturn the ban until earlier this month. She wasn’t persuaded that the fair’s recent decision to contract with the county sheriff’s office for law enforcement on the grounds was a significant change. Nelson said the purpose of a temporary injunction is normally to preserve the status quo, and that the status quo in this case favors letting the ban stand.

“The Plaintiffs have long been aware of the Society’s position on guns at the State Fair, and that their extensive delay undercuts their claim of irreparable harm,” Nelson wrote.

-snip-

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/business-arts-and-entertainment-minnesota-gun-politics-9e45c422f6e7127fad64d4d5d7f2c04c

[Auggie]

1. Expect some crazies to show up with guns anyway

[keithbvadu2]

2. Gun owners' groups should certainly sue the NRA for denying their 'right' to carry in the NRA conven

Gun owners' groups should certainly sue the NRA for denying their 'right' to carry in the NRA conventions.

[Straw Man]

4. Except that is wasn't the NRA who denied the right.

In some cases it was the venue, and in a few it was the Secret Service, due to a visit by the VP.

[keithbvadu2]

5. The NRA chose that venue

[Straw Man]

6. If you're talking about Nashville in 2015 ...

... some of the buildings involved allowed carry while others had policies against it.

In every instance I'm aware of since then, it has been the Secret Service banning guns in the hall where the President of Vice-President is speaking. The NRA has no control over the policy decisions of the Secret Service.

I'm sure you can find better, more truthful ways of making the NRA look bad.

[keithbvadu2]

7. I don't disagree about the SS. Never did.

I don't disagree about the SS.

It's true about the NRA not protecting gun rights in their other venues.

I'm sure you can find better, more truthful ways of making the NRA look good.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. So you're explaining that the NRA...

...actually favors gun-control? There's a new take.

[keithbvadu2]

9. How 'bout that?

How 'bout that?

The NRA recognizes that their members are not trustworthy with guns.

Hired security/police are adequate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I've always thought actions speak louder than words.

If, by actions, the NRA espouses "control" why do so many pro-"control" folks speak against them?

[keithbvadu2]

11. That is amazing!

That is amazing!

Just like pro-gun folks defending NRA for denying Second Amendment rights to their own members.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. re: "...pro-gun folks defending NRA for denying Second Amendment rights..."

I really don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm inferring that you're saying the venue choices made by the NRA are hypocritical.

I've seen hundreds of posts, articles and videos from the pro-"control" side and many of them are more anti-NRA than they are for actually making any real point about the positives of far reaching laws, regulations that affect the law abiding much more than criminals and onerous bans that have little basis in criminology.

On my own I see things about our laws and such that can be meaningfully improved. I also see those advancements being regularly torpedoed by "control" folks who won't fail to ask for the moon and stars along with a proverbial easy gimme. What should I think about that group?

As a Democrat I am disappointed.

[keithbvadu2]

13. OK

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. You're welcome

[Straw Man]

15. OK -- so that torpedoes half your argument.

I don't disagree about the SS.

It's true about the NRA not protecting gun rights in their other venues.

Now for the second half: Please give specifics. Where, when, and how did the NRA fail to protect gun rights at their conventions? In not selecting a city in which every venue allowed unrestricted carry? And you think they did this deliberately ... why? I'm not even sure what your accusation is. That the NRA is insufficiently extremist?

There is a lot on which to criticize the NRA. This doesn't qualify.

[keithbvadu2]

16. OK

[Ocelot II]

3. Good. I didn't think the gunners would succeed, but I'm not going anyhow

on account of the covid. Still, it's good to know that there won't be gun loons running around threatening to shoot people for wearing masks - which seems at least possible.