Laserfiche WebLink
and "public employees with mandated <br />duties". Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6 <br />specifically defines "public employees with <br />mandated duties" as agricultural inspectors, <br />occupational safety and health inspectors, <br />child protection workers, public health <br />nurses, animal control officers, and <br />probation or parole officers. An assault on <br />one of these employees who is engaged in <br />the performance of a duty mandated by law, <br />court order, or ordinance, is a gross <br />misdemeanor if the person knows the <br />employee is engaged in the performance of <br />official duties and inflicts demonstrable <br />bodily harm. <br />Under current law, an assault on a code <br />enforcement official not enumerated in <br />Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6 while <br />performing official business can only be <br />charged as fifth degree assault, a <br />misdemeanor, unless it results in substantial <br />bodily harm. All code enforcement officials <br />should be afforded the same protections <br />under Minnesota Statutes, and the legislature <br />should amend the statute to expand the <br />employees covered by the statute. <br />Response: The legislature should expand <br />Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6 to include <br />code enforcement officials. The term code <br />enforcement official should be defined <br />broadly to include public employees and <br />contractors whose jobs require them to <br />enforce all administrative codes, rules, <br />ordinances, and state laws. <br />SD -31. Restrictions on Possession of <br />Firearms <br />Issue: The Minnesota Citizens Personal <br />Protection Act, also known as "conceal -and - <br />carry," prohibits guns on most school <br />properties but forbids other local units of <br />government from prohibiting loaded <br />firearms on their properties. The <br />inconsistencies in the law's treatment of <br />different kinds of properties have caused <br />confusion about how the law applies to <br />multi -use facilities, such as municipal ice <br />arenas used for school -sponsored programs. <br />Further, the law gives private property <br />owners the right to prohibit guns in their <br />establishments, but prohibits landowners <br />from restricting firearm possession by <br />tenants and their guests without <br />distinguishing between residential and <br />commercial properties. This creates <br />confusion for shopping malls and other retail <br />properties with large common areas that are <br />not occupied by the tenants but which the <br />tenants and their customers must cross to <br />access the tenant's space. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities requests an amendment to the <br />Citizens Personal Protection Act that <br />would allow cities to prohibit handguns in <br />city -owned buildings, facilities, and parks. <br />The League is not seeking a repeal of the <br />Citizens Personal Protection Act, nor <br />authority to prohibit legal weapons in <br />parking lots or on city streets and <br />sidewalks. The League also supports <br />efforts by commercial property owners to <br />clarify that the prohibition on restricting <br />possession by tenants and their guests <br />applies only to residential rental property. <br />SD -32. Public Safety <br />Communications <br />Issue: The state role in financing public <br />safety communications has important cost <br />implications for cities. The state needs to <br />accept financial responsibility for use by <br />cities of the state public safety radio <br />communications backbone. Cities have <br />struggled to pay high expenses to participate <br />in the 800 MHz statewide public safety <br />system. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 20 <br />