EDITORS NOTE: The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus released the following statement to AmmoLand News: https://gunowners.mn/press-release-judge-tunheim-rules-against-mn-gun-owners-caucus-in-state-fair-case/
MINNEAPOLIS, MN -(Ammoland.com)- A Minnesota Federal District judge defies the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision by applying “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring” to a case involving banning firearms at the Minnesota State Fair.
The case involved Rev. Tim Christopher, Sara Cade Hauptman, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus suing the State Agriculture Society after the group chose to ban firearms at the state fair. All the plaintiffs were “pro se.” Pro se means the plaintiffs represent themselves in court instead of hiring attorneys to litigate the lawsuit. Most pro-se lawsuits fail because the plaintiffs are unfamiliar with the intricacies of civil law. It is always advisable to seek outside counsel to increase your chance of a favorable outcome.
In this case, the plaintiffs believed that the state could not ban guns on state grounds because it violates their Second Amendment rights. Ms. Hauptman and Rev. Christopher purchased tickets to the State Fair but could not attend because the pair refused to do so without their firearms. Neither is banned from carrying firearms under state or federal law. The two teamed up with Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus to challenge the State Agriculture Society and recover damages for breach of contract.
Under Bruen, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that although some places could ban guns because they are “sensitive areas,” the mere fact that people gather in a location is not enough for the area to be considered “sensitive.” A “sensitive area” would be more like a school or government building, not a fairground. This ruling would seem to give the plaintiffs the advantage since the State Agriculture Society banned firearms because of the crowds, but the judge rule as if the Bruen Decision never happened.
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim either never heard of the Bruen decision, which seems unlikely because he is a federal judge, or chose to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The judge ruled that the State Agriculture Society did not violate the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. He says the defendants have the right to ban guns because the fairgrounds are crowded.
A federal judge ignoring a Supreme Court decision is shocking. More shockingly, Judge Tunheim used the “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring” in his decision. Both are strictly prohibited from being used in Second Amendment cases. Multiple lawsuits have been remanded to lower courts to be reconsidered because “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring” are no longer allowed to be applied to Second Amendment cases.
Judge Tunheim was appointed by Bill Clinton and had a history of ruling against Second Amendment advocates leaving many to wonder if he was an “activist judge.” The Bruen decision is written in black and white language regarding “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring.” There is no gray area in the opinion of the high court.
AmmoLand News reached out to Judge Tunheim to ask if he had read of the Bruen decision, but our calls were not returned.
AmmoLand News reached out to the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus to inquire if there were any plans to file for a motion of reconsideration in the case because the judge’s ruling contradicts Bruen, but our emails and calls were not returned.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Always remember Boys and Girls,
“It’s not about Gun-Control,
It’s about Control”.
Our problem seems to be an unchecked system that never seems to punish those out of line. Their justice is only an illusion of holding the guilty accountable only when it’s convenient.
In the 17th and 18th century, the people had an remedy for judges like this. It was call “Tar and Feathers.” It worked quite well!
The judge should be held in contempt of court because he violated a Supreme Court Justice ruling and should be disbarred. Or at least reprimanded by the high court
When our law enforcement officers and military refuse to put their life on the line anymore because of crap like this then shit will get real fast and all these anti Americans like this will get a dose of the real world they created
one of the reasons i moved out of that state. the state is great, so are the citizens, but the government/political class and unions makes it a terrible place.
Federal judges serve while in ‘good behavior.’ We need to more clearly define that term in relation to both competence in applying law and in respect for both enumerated rights and standing court decisions by higher courts. When judges or justices disregard either they need to be sanctioned. If it becomes a pattern they need to be impeached. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned of all of our circuits. It is time for accountability.
Here come the judge Yes he is the last word in a courtroom that he controls that is how the law works even when that judge knows he is way out of line. That is the power that comes with the title, the abuse. Taking this to a higher court will cost money time and resources that is what the judge is counting on. Even if this went to the supreme court on this judge’s ruling nothing happens to a politically appointed liberal judge. This Judge is there to do the dirty work of those who placed him on the… Read more »
The same state, the same people that put Ilhan Omar in office? Y’all sound surprised.
What do you do when the “LAW” becomes lawless?