Under the rationale put forth by respondent, anyone with a proprietary interest in a business would be able to carry a loaded pistol in his car while traveling between home and work regardless of how indirect and far reaching the route.
More:
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19910605_0004.MN.htm/qx
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA: 06/05/91 STATE MINNESOTA v. DONALD JOSEPH POUPARD
[...]
FACTS
[...]Respondent alleged in his affidavit submitted to the trial court in support of his motion to dismiss that he was the owner of the Hungry Pilgrim Restaurant located at Interstate 494 and Highway 55. Respondent further stated that the gun found in his car was formerly in the restaurant safe and was being transported to his home located near the intersection of Interstate 494 and Highway 62. He explained that the transfer was necessary because the restaurant had been sold and new owners were taking possession on May 12, 1990. Respondent further alleged that on his way home, he stopped at the Hopkins House Restaurant (located at 1501 Highway 7, Hopkins). He explained that he intended to deliver kitchen equipment, but admitted to the arresting officer that he had had a few drinks while at the Hopkins House.
[...]
Based on these submissions, the trial court dismissed the weapons count concluding:
This Court finds that the State has not proffered any evidence to support the allegation that defendant was not carrying his pistol between his dwelling and place of business as is permissible pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? [6]24.714, subd. 9(c).
[...]
ISSUES
[...]
2. Did the trial court err by dismissing the weapons charge after concluding the state had not met its burden of showing that respondent was not on his way home?
[...]
ANALYSIS
[...]
We believe that subdivision 9(c) was intended to carve out a narrow exception to the general requirement of obtaining a permit to carry a handgun. The expansive interpretation of the exception urged by respondent would substantially broaden the spectrum of conduct that would not require a permit. Under the rationale put forth by respondent, anyone with a proprietary interest in a business would be able to carry a loaded pistol in his car while traveling between home and work regardless of how indirect and far reaching the route. Cf. Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Minn. 1980) (rejecting interpretation that anyone driving an "appreciable distance" on public highway obtained right to carry weapon without permit, as gutting the statute). We hold, therefore, that the exception must be construed narrowly to avoid negating the general rule that a permit is required to carry a handgun and protect the public interest.
[...]
DECISION
The trial court erred by dismissing the charges where the state presented sufficient evidence to raise a question for jury resolution.
Reversed and remanded.
. Wouldn't hurt to call a few lawyers and hear what they have to say about it. I know concealed is concealed but it's not something that I would risk the rest of my life not owning another firearm.
