Jeff Dege: Minnesota Concealed weapons law overturned RESPONSE

The internet is a fascinating place.  I do a search of Google News and I find a piece in Pravda concerning Minnesota's new gun law.
I expect that for many Pravda readers, Minnesota's gun laws aren't among their highest priorities.  But after reading Michael Berglin's "Minnesota"s Concealed weapons law is overturned", I feel it necessary to point out a number of factual failings.

Berglin writes: "The new criteria for granting a concealed and carry permit under the new law, was limited to only two criterions: If the person had a felony record, or was/is confined to a state hospital for mental illness."  This is simply not true.

The relevent law is availble on the web, here:

 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/624/714.html

He writes that his aunt has a permit, and would not have been able to even purchase a handgun under the old law.  The new law didn't address eligibility for purchasing a handgun - the law is exactly as it was.

He writes "Prior to the new law, it was a felony to carry a weapon unto private property against the property owners wishes."  There was no such law.

He writes "Prior to the new law, it was a felony to carry a weapon onto school grounds.  The new law reduced that to only a petty misdemeanor."  I don't know whether Berglin is unknowingly repeating a falsehood, or intentionally lying, but this statement remains a lie, either way.

It is a felony to carry a firearm onto school grounds in Minnesota unless you are a police officer or have a handgun permit.  The new law didn't change that.  What the new law did change was to make it a misdemeanor to for a permit holder to carry on school grounds, when the prior law granted permit holders a specific exception.

The new law created a criminal penalty for permit holders that did not exist before.  And it left the penalties for everyone else the same as they had been.

This cannot be honestly described as "reducing" the penalties for carrying on school grounds.

And if Berglin doesn't understand that, he should have actually read the law before he started trying to explain it.

Jeff Dege