Just weeks after the state court of appeals agreed the first version was unconstitutional, both the House and the Senate appear poised to pass a new version of the conceal and carry handgun law. The courts were upset with the way the original law passed, as an amendment to an unrelated bill. Now a new version of the bill appears to be on the fast track. MPR's Tom Scheck has the story:

[Rep Larry ]Howes says the only change in the new bill would allow business owners to either post a "no guns" sign or personally notify a permit holder that guns are not allowed in their establishment. The old law required business owners to do both. Howes says the rest of the law is appropriate, and he is confident lawmakers will pass it. "The bill we passed in 2003, with all the discussion, all the debate, all the meetings is a good bill. We're re-enacting that law with one change from 'and' to 'or.' That's what we're going to stick with... I'm not going to accept any amendments in any committee or on the floor," he said.

Howes says he didn't want to accept any amendments for fear it would reopen debate on the entire bill. Before the law was changed in 2003, county sheriffs and police chiefs had wide discretion to issue or refuse a handgun permit to any citizen. Critics said that law created a patchwork where citizens in one county could get a handgun permit while those in other counties could not.

How good are the chances that the new bill will become law? Pretty darn good according to the Star Tribune:

Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson confirmed that a Senate floor vote will be held before the May 23 adjournment, but only after an ad hoc working group and a standing committee consider further changes.

"Some folks who opposed it last session are going to vote for it if a few wrinkles are worked out," Johnson said, singling out concerns of some churches over banning guns in their parking lots and rental property.

Pawlenty "signed the bill once and he'd sign it again," said his spokesman, Brian McClung.

Why will the new law pass so easily? MPR's Scheck suggests that with more than 25,000 permits granted after the first version passed, lawmakers are convinced that the doomsday scenarios proposed by both sides in the debate never came to pass. In other words, the change in the permitting process proved to be no big deal. Still, expect quite a debate before another law passes.

Along with guns, Minnesota lawmakers clearly like alcohol-- alcohol made from corn, that is, and pumped into automobile fuel tanks. The House followed the lead of the Senate Wednesday and passed a bill that would make Minnesota an island of ethanol pumpers. The bill requires gasoline sold in the state to be mixed with 20 percent ethanol by 2013, assuming the feds give their blessing. The Star Tribune gives a flavor of the debate:

During a lengthy floor debate, some suburban fiscal conservatives argued that the proposal amounted to an improper interference in the marketplace. And some urban liberals contended that environmental claims were off-base and that the bill could produce more pollution of surface water and groundwater.

But the political forces behind increasing both usage and production of ethanol in Minnesota appear to be irresistible, and the bill is likely to be signed into law soon. Corn growers and an alliance of rural interest groups support it. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has made it a top priority and current gas prices give the proposal an added boost.

And the governor wants more say over how schools spend their money. This item is from MPR's Michael Khoo:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is calling on school districts to ensure that roughly two thirds of their spending makes it into classrooms.

Pawlenty cited education department data showing classroom spending varied widely by school districts, with some spending less than half of their budgets on classroom instruction.

"That is the front line of education in Minnesota. We know that besides parents the number one determining factor of how a child's going to do in school is their teacher and the classroom setting. Driving more resources, encouraging more resources into the classroom is an important part of that proposition," he said.

Pawlenty says statewide classroom spending is about 62 percent of school districts' expenditures.

Senate DFLers, however, say the move is a gimmick that merely shuffles funding around without offering new resources. Sen. Steve Kelley, DFL-Hopkins, chairs the Senate Education Committee.

"It's another mandate," he said. "And it gives credence to the false notion that we can mandate school improvement by tinkering with accounting mechanisms."

School districts point out that the non-classroom spending includes things like buses, janitors, libraries and computers.