Laws that went into effect on August 1 and updates on EMS grants and nursing home funding

Here are some of the new laws that took effect August 1, 2024

New penalties for straw purchases and guns

The penalty for a straw purchase, which involves a person buying a firearm for someone who is ineligible to purchase or possess them, now increases from a gross misdemeanor to a felony.

The ban on the trigger devices, which enable guns to fire more than one shot with the pull and then release of a trigger, is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2025. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has helpful information for owners of firearms with binary triggers.

Harsher penalty for hoax emergency calls

“Swatting” incidents involving false emergency calls aimed at sending police to the homes of elected officials and others are rising from a gross misdemeanor to a felony.

The law covers elected representatives, corrections officers, judges, prosecuting attorneys and peace officers.

Broader definition of “doxing” -- publicly disclosing people’s private information online with an intent to cause harm. The information covered by the law is expanded to include the officials’ home and cell phone numbers, and their minor children’s names. If the release of information does cause harm, the offense is a felony.

Children no longer can ride on the front passenger side of a vehicle until they are 13 years old, under new car seat laws.

Kids can begin riding in booster seats at age 4 and must remain in them until age 9, unless they reach the weight and height limit of a designated child passenger restraint system.

For younger children, rear-facing seats are required from birth to at least 2 years old, after which they can switch to forward-facing seats, provided again that they meet height and weight limits.

Vehicle towing

Prohibition on the towing of vehicles solely for being parked at an expired meter, as well as towing vehicles with license tabs that have been expired for less than 90 days.

For a more comprehensive printable list of laws that went into effect see this list at the Minnesota House of Representatives.

In addition to these new laws, grant money for programs passed over the last 2 years are continuing to become available. The second round of emergency nursing home funding has now been distributed and applications for Rural Emergency Medical Services grants are also available until September 14.

Update on in-home daycare DHS rules

Last month’s newsletter included information about the Minnesota Department of Human Services soliciting feedback on new proposed rules for in-home daycare.

Many of you found these newly proposed rules troubling because they were very invasive and, in some cases, would be so unaffordable or impractical to attain compliance that they would drive them out of business. I included links to fill out the feedback survey.

There is good news to report! (DHS) will not propose language to adopt revised childcare standards in the 2025 legislative session. According to a release dated August 12: “DHS received extensive feedback from the childcare community requesting more time for additional feedback and engagement on the next draft version of standards. We are honoring those requests and allowing more time to develop draft licensing standards.”

This does not mean they will not be doing rulemaking for their “modernization” campaign; it only means they will be taking a step back from trying to get them passed next year.

I will continue to watch how they reach out to in-home daycare providers, as they claim they will do.

The Minnesota Supreme court ruling in the Blevins case

Gun owners, especially permit to carry holders and anyone who may at some time use a weapon in self-defense should be aware that a recent Minnesota Supreme Court Case alters some of the legal protections that a victim has in a self-defense encounter.

The decision in State of Minnesota vs. Blevins enlarges the duty to retreat in that you must use every opportunity to retreat before brandishing a weapon. If you don’t, you could be guilty of 2nd degree assault.

There are several problems with this decision. One is, there is no definition of “brandishing” a weapon in Minnesota Law. Is it waving it around in the air like the defendant in Blevins did? Or is it simply showing someone you have a weapon? It is commonly understood that doing so could serve as a deterrent to attacker, as Justice Paul Thissen pointed out in his dissent. Could open carry be considered “brandishing” in some circumstances? And what about the opportunities for retreat? They may look different to the victim, to witnesses, to a police officer after the fact, to jurors or a judge.

We simply won’t know how this ruling will play out unless a case comes to trial where the court will decide how far the Blevins ruling goes or the legislature defines brandishing and clearly states that it is not a crime when used in self-defense. I will be studying options for legislation to ensure that no innocent victim could be charged with a crime while trying to defend themselves due to this ruling.

It’s important to note that the Blevins ruling does not apply to self-defense in your home. The original case dealt with a guy waving a machete around at people at a Light Rail Station. You do not have a duty to retreat further when you are inside your home. It applies to situations where you are in public and there is threat to you or someone else.

If you would like to read the actual decision and the dissent by Justice Thissen. it’s here.

Single Subject gets another day in court

On August 2, UnitedHealth Group filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota in Hennepin County District Court over a provision in the Health and Human Services section of the so-called 1,400-page “Mega Omnibus bill” that was passed by the legislature in the last hours of the last legislative day of the 2024 session. The provision in the bill prohibits the state from contracting with for-profit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to run Medicaid plans, which excludes UHG as a for-profit entity.

But rather than attacking the provision on commercial grounds, the company's complaint argues that the bill violates the Minnesota Constitution's "single subject clause," which states that "no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." UnitedHealth claims that the bill is unconstitutional because it doesn't adhere to this rule.

This is not the first time there has been a court challenge against an omnibus bill on violation of the single subject clause grounds. Even though “Mega Omnibus” would seem to be a gross violation on its face, challenges based on a single subject have not been successful for the most part. This is partly because the Minnesota Supreme Court has been reluctant to rule against the legislature in a situation that would severely impact its internal processes, saying, “Police yourself!” And partly because they have accepted broad definitions of “subject” as “government” or “regulation.”

“Mega Omnibus” resulted from combining nine omnibus bills and getting them passed before the deadline by a mere one-vote DFL Senate majority.

Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of UHG, it doesn’t necessarily mean the entire bill will be thrown out. They could rule that the Medicaid provision is “severable” and toss out that bill section. But if they did, it might put the brakes on larger and larger omnibus bills, which flagrantly violate the single-subject rule.

Laws that went into effect on August 1 and updates on EMS grants and nursing home funding

Update on in-home daycare DHS rules

The Minnesota Supreme court ruling in the Blevins case

Single Subject gets another day in court

Information for those Impacted by Heavy Rains this summer