Public safety panel considers tougher sentences for felonies involving firearms

“Three strikes and you’re out” mandate prison time for offenders committing their third felony offense.

Those felony laws currently may get tougher.

Rep. Walter Hudson (R-Albertville) sponsors HF3380 that would mandate longer sentences for these felony offenders if they also used firearms in their previous crimes.

Judges now have discretion to impose longer prison sentences than prescribed by state sentencing guidelines under these circumstances. Hudson’s bill would require judges to increase prison sentences “up to the statutory maximum.”

Other provisions in the bill would affect what happens after sentencing.

“That offender must serve the full term,” Hudson said. “No early release, no probation, no cycling back in the community after repeated armed violence.”

The House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee laid the bill over Wednesday, with Co-Chair Rep. Paul Novotny (R-Elk River) saying it needs a fiscal note before it can advance.

David Zimmer, public safety policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment, said the bill “would tighten loopholes currently exploited by violent offenders … and reestablish appropriate consequences for committing multiple crimes of violence.”

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the bill. In a letter to the committee, Munira Mohamed, policy associate at ACLU-MN, said: “These increased sentences are not effective deterrents, and they destroy a person’s chance at rehabilitation, reunification with family, and reintegration into society.”

Rep. Dave Pinto (DFL-St. Paul) raised constitutional concerns, saying mandating judicial actions could run afoul of the separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial branches of government.

The committee ended on a tense note when Novotny ruled out of order an amendment that would have expanded the prohibition of assault weapons.

Committee Co-Chair Rep. Kelly Moller (DFL-Shoreview) objected, saying that she had never seen amendments ruled out of order in committee meetings, only on the House Floor.

When Pinto asked Novotny for a reason for his ruling, Novotny declined to provide one and abruptly ended the meeting.