Inviting a Stop and Frisk through Open Carry

[fuller malarkey]

I do believe that it's time for you to put your money where your mouth has so boldy gone. You've agitated and stirred on this topic in two dififerent forums. Strap your pistol on in plain sight and start walking around. Downtown MPLS, downtown St. Paul, Mall of America, Southdale Mall. Take notes and report back.

If that type of activism isn't for you, let us know WHAT you're ACTUALLY DOING to change the law to something more in-line with whatever your personal views may be.

There are much better ways to bring about change than putting one's self in harms way right out of the chute. Discussing the issue on forums with those involved comes to mind....

I couldn't find any of the areas you suggest I "strap on my pistol" and start walking around without a map or a GPS. I have no business in any of those places. And truthfully, [and maybe selfishly] I'm primarily concerned about being able to do what I'm legally permitted to do where I do have business being. As a side, I'm willing help anyone else with the same concerns.

[ferric021]

I contend the comparison of the requirement to be licensed to drive and free of unwarranted intrusion being protected by federal court rulings based on the fourth amendment and the similarities with requiring a permit to carry a handgun is more fitting.

I think I agree with this, but I'm not sure that I'm fully ready to accept the implications of that until I've had more time to digest it. Thank you for your input.

[ferric021]

Also, to answer your question:

Can a kid be charged with "being inebriated while a minor"? Or was the charge "minor in possession"?

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340A.503

340A.503 PERSONS UNDER 21; ILLEGAL ACTS.

Subdivision 1.Consumption. (a) It is unlawful for any:
(1) retail intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor licensee, municipal liquor store, or bottle club permit holder under section 340A.414, to permit any person under the age of 21 years to drink alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises or within the municipal liquor store; or

(2) person under the age of 21 years to consume any alcoholic beverages. If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of this clause that the defendant consumed the alcoholic beverage in the household of the defendant's parent or guardian and with the consent of the parent or guardian.

(b) An offense under paragraph (a), clause (2), may be prosecuted either in the jurisdiction where consumption occurs or the jurisdiction where evidence of consumption is observed.

(c) As used in this subdivision, "consume" includes the ingestion of an alcoholic beverage and the physical condition of having ingested an alcoholic beverage.

It's just illegal to be underage and have alcohol in your system. From my understanding, being at a party in Dinkytown where alcohol is being served is enough to check IDs and breathalize the persons under 21. I could be wrong, there might need to be a complaint called about loud noises or something before hand, but there might not need to be a complaint.

Going back to the original post, even if there is a call that needs to be made before officers are allowed to break up a party and check IDs, in the scenario from the original post it sounds like there were numerous reports/calls about the man with a firearm in the park before they went up to him to check his permit.

[Collector1337420]

Voting is a privilege of citizenship.
The ability to defend oneself with arms is a right.

Don't confuse the two.

Except if you're a felon, you can't do either.

[tman]

Voting is a privilege of citizenship.
The ability to defend oneself with arms is a right.

Don't confuse the two.

Except if you're a felon, you can't do either.

That's not exactly true.

A felon may defend him or her self by any lawful means.

[fuller malarkey]

Voting is a privilege of citizenship.
The ability to defend oneself with arms is a right.

Don't confuse the two.

Except if you're a felon, you can't do either.

For felons, I think that's a somewhat temporary situation, isn't it? The courts can be petitioned to have rights restored, and I'd imagine depending on jurisdiction and amount of available money to fund the matter, firearms rights could be included in the restoration process.

Personally, I think it's time to reexamine the wholesale disenfranchisement of those who have committed wrongs and paid their debt. No, I don't think Charles Manson and Co. should be trusted with guns. Nor do I think the courts would permit similar examples to acquire the means to inflict more harm. I'm of the opinion some reason prevails in our systems. And where reasons is lacking, the citizens can demand some.

[texasprowler]

If you can't trust a man with a gun, you can't trust that man, in our society, and he should be removed.

[Heffay]

If you can't trust a man with a gun, you can't trust that man, in our society, and he should be removed.

[tman]

Personally, I think it's time to reexamine the wholesale disenfranchisement of those who have committed wrongs and paid their debt. No, I don't think Charles Manson and Co. should be trusted with guns. Nor do I think the courts would permit similar examples to acquire the means to inflict more harm. I'm of the opinion some reason prevails in our systems. And where reasons is lacking, the citizens can demand some.

I'm sure you're aware that there is a federal LIFETIME restriction on possessing ANY firearm if you are ajudged a guilty of domestic violence, or if a judge finds that you committed domestic violence during a civil Order for Protection hearing. In MN, the restriction is against handguns only and lasts 3 years. A little disparity, perhaps?

[fuller malarkey]

Personally, I think it's time to reexamine the wholesale disenfranchisement of those who have committed wrongs and paid their debt. No, I don't think Charles Manson and Co. should be trusted with guns. Nor do I think the courts would permit similar examples to acquire the means to inflict more harm. I'm of the opinion some reason prevails in our systems. And where reasons is lacking, the citizens can demand some.

I'm sure you're aware that there is a federal LIFETIME restriction on possessing ANY firearm if you are ajudged a guilty of domestic violence, or if a judge finds that you committed domestic violence during a civil Order for Protection hearing. In MN, the restriction is against handguns only and lasts 3 years. A little disparity, perhaps?

I highlighted in red a qualifier regarding those who may be repeat offenders, or otherwise a threat. A reasonable reader might conclude that would include domestic situations. On that note, I stand that once the debt for the transgression is paid, the citizen deserves the right to petition restoration of rights, ESPECIALLY domestic situations. I know of several people affected by claims of violence by a vengeful, spiteful spouse that were and are unfounded. Anyone claiming otherwise, I'd have to explore if I were dealing with a fool or a liar.

[Collector1337420]

Voting is a privilege of citizenship.
The ability to defend oneself with arms is a right.

Don't confuse the two.

Except if you're a felon, you can't do either.

That's not exactly true.

A felon may defend him or her self by any lawful means.

So, it's lawful for a felon to defend themselves with a firearm?

But, they can't own one?

[Heffay]

A felon may defend him or her self by any lawful means.

So, it's lawful for a felon to defend themselves with a firearm?

But, they can't own one?

I thought the answer tman gave was pretty clear and concise. What do *you* think the answer is?

[ex-LT]

Except if you're a felon, you can't do either.

That's not exactly true.

A felon may defend him or her self by any lawful means.

So, it's lawful for a felon to defend themselves with a firearm?

But, they can't own one?

Do you need a firearm to defend yourself? I - and most others here - would probably argue that you don't.

[Collector1337420]

A felon may defend him or her self by any lawful means.

So, it's lawful for a felon to defend themselves with a firearm?

But, they can't own one?

I thought the answer tman gave was pretty clear and concise. What do *you* think the answer is?

It's not clear and concise. That's why I'm asking.

It would be "lawful" for someone who can legally posses a firearm to defend ones self.

I don't see how it would be "lawful" for a felon to though, if it's illegal for them to possess a firearm. How can you use something you aren't allowed to have?

[Collector1337420]

Do you need a firearm to defend yourself? I - and most others here - would probably argue that you don't.

That's the weirdest thing I've heard on a gun forum in a while. Don't get caught saying that to some anti-gunner. CCW will be gone if someone who is pro-gun admits that. That's the kind of thing I would keep to myself.

If your attacker is armed, I would say that you most definitely need a firearm to defend yourself. You don't always have the ability to run away.

Also, if you're a weaker person, let's say a woman for the sake of argument, a firearm is really the only thing that will level the playing field if attacked by some big guy, armed or unarmed.

If you don't "need" a firearm to defend yourself (what if you have to defend more than just yourself?), then cops wouldn't "need" to carry guns.