Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 26, 2018 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br />1 review this Ordinance. City Planner/Supervisor Sevald reported the applicant made the City <br />2 aware of need to review this Ordinance. <br />3 <br />4 Council Member Meehlhause requested further information on INH and their primary core <br />5 business. City Planner/Supervisor Sevald indicated INH was a developer and their core business <br />6 was to manage apartment buildings. He explained INH was located out of St. Cloud, Minnesota. <br />7 <br />8 Council Member Meehlhause stated he was not aware of anyone on the City Council <br />9 approaching the school district telling them this was not their issue. He commented he had not <br />10 talked to anyone at the school district. He asked what type of risk the City had if weapons were <br />11 allowed to be discharged in Mounds View. City Attorney Riggs stated under the Ordinance the <br />12 use would be limited and the reality was the liability would remain the same. <br />13 <br />14 Council Member Meehlhause commented on an unfortunate suicide event that occurred at Bill's <br />15 Gun Club in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. He inquired if Robbinsdale had any liability for this <br />16 unfortunate situation. City Attorney Riggs advised the City of Robbinsdale would have no <br />17 liability. <br />18 <br />19 Council Member Meehlhause questioned if City Ordinances had to be in alignment with State <br />20 Statute. City Attorney Riggs commented he would have to speak with Ramsey County Attorney <br />21 Choi regarding this matter as he did not understand where this comment came from. He stated <br />22 the best practice was to have City Ordinance in alignment or compliant with State Statute. <br />23 <br />24 Council Member Bergeron commented Minnesota Statute 471.633 stipulates that the legislature <br />25 preempts all authority of a home rule, charter, or statutory city, including a city, first class county, <br />26 town, municipal corporation, or other government subdivision or any of their instrumentalities to <br />27 regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion in any <br />28 order, ordinance, or regulation by them except: 1.) we may adopt regulations that are identical to <br />29 State law; and 2.) a government subdivision may regulate the discharge or firearms. He <br />3o explained this meant the discharge of firearms was the only regulatory action the City Council <br />31 could take. City Attorney Riggs reported this was the case and noted the City was proposing to <br />32 address the discharge of firearms. <br />33 <br />34 Council Member Bergeron stated the bone of contention at this time was the proposed addition <br />35 addressing the discharge of firearms. He read the proposed language in full for the record. He <br />36 recommended the Council delete Section B from the proposed Ordinance amendment. <br />37 <br />38 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: Bergeron/Gunn. To Remove Exception 5, Section B <br />39 from Ordinance 939, Amending Chapter 702 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to <br />40 the Discharge of Weapons within the City. <br />41 <br />42 Council Member Gunn explained based on her own research and after witnessing the students at <br />43 Irondale she did not support the City allowing the discharge of guns at a gun range/gun club. She <br />44 commented the recent events in Florida have greatly impacted students and it was important to <br />45 her to keep them safe. She stated she would only support the Ordinance amendment after Section <br />