Carry at the mall.

[texasprowler]

Not sure why a 1996 US case wouldn't trump a 1977 state ruling.

US v Deberry, seventh circuit US court.

I would think other fourth amendment supreme court rulings would invalidate any state law that presumes guilt. Or must they first be tested?

[tman]

Not sure why a 1996 US case wouldn't trump a 1977 state ruling.

US v Deberry, seventh circuit US court.

I would think other fourth amendment supreme court rulings would invalidate any state law that presumes guilt. Or must they first be tested?

MN is in the Eighth circuit. Seventh circuit cases wouldn't automatically apply, IIRC.

Plus, it doesn't matter in your case. MN's permit law clearly gave the LEO's "stop and ID" authority because of the "man with a gun call." Plus, you CHOSE to leave, rather than simply cover up.

You'd have a hard time making a civil rights case.

[Roon]

Kind of surprised Terry v. Ohio has not been brought up. Did the officers stopping him have a reasonable suspicion based upon "specific and articulable facts" that he was committing a crime by carrying openly in the store? The permit required to carry argument really doesn't hold up and I am surprised that people think that it does. Does "I wanted to see if you were legally driving?" qualify as probable cause for a traffic stop? The correct answer is no to that question btw, so why on earth would that apply to the legal activity of carrying a firearm? Seems to me the conversation with dispatch should have gone something like

Store Owner - "Hello there is a man with a gun in my store I would like removed".
Dispatch - "Ok, have you asked this person to leave?"
Store Owner - "No I have not"
Dispatch - "Well sir, no crime has been committed, if you decide to ask this person to leave and they refuse we can assist at that time."

[Roon]

Not sure why a 1996 US case wouldn't trump a 1977 state ruling.

US v Deberry, seventh circuit US court.

I would think other fourth amendment supreme court rulings would invalidate any state law that presumes guilt. Or must they first be tested?

MN is in the Eighth circuit. Seventh circuit cases wouldn't automatically apply, IIRC.

Plus, it doesn't matter in your case. MN's permit law clearly gave the LEO's "stop and ID" authority because of the "man with a gun call." Plus, you CHOSE to leave, rather than simply cover up.

You'd have a hard time making a civil rights case.

A "man with a gun" call constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? I have a hard time thinking that would fly in court.

[texasprowler]

You'd have a hard time making a civil rights case.

Had I refused to produce ID, then perhaps?

Also, could you explain why subd. 23 of MPPA wasn't violated? (Police may not limit right to carry)

[texasprowler]

It should have been "a man with a legal object call" with suspicion of the crime of lacking a permit.

(Yes, I know it isn't that way)

The property owners requested the police to commit a crime on a tenants leased property, so they did.

(The crime being the demand to cover up or face consequences of....)

[jgalt]

Also, could you explain why subd. 23 of MPPA wasn't violated? (Police may not limit right to carry)

This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding. They didn't limit your right to carry, they asked you to modify your manner of carry - possibly at the request of the property owner...

You can complain about what they actually did, but you can't complain about something they didn't in fact do...

[texasprowler]

Could they then require me to carry unloaded?

[texasprowler]

With regard to the private property issue, I give up. I have asked lots of questions and got many responses. I don't disagree with any response, and I apologize to anyone who thought I have been argumentative.
It's just that I have a very thick skull and need to ask many questions in order to understand the overall logic.

So gathering all the info collected, I leave the issue with this summation:

In MN, the bank who owns my house can decide whether my guests must wear shoes, then the bank can order the police to come into my home and demand that my guests put on shoes. Refusal to comply will result in trespassing charges. I, as renter or mortgagee, have have no right to invite shoeless people into my home.
And the police have a duty to enforce posted and verbal rules and demands of property owners.

I think I got it, absent logic.

Perhaps I have a pee brain inside my thick skull.

[tman]

A "man with a gun" call constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? I have a hard time thinking that would fly in court.

I didn't say that.

MWAG call gives cops enough to have "lawful demand" of the permit holder's credentials. It's a fairly LOW threshold.

[jshuberg]

Kind of surprised Terry v. Ohio has not been brought up. Did the officers stopping him have a reasonable suspicion based upon "specific and articulable facts" that he was committing a crime by carrying openly in the store?

Yes. Under current case law the act of carrying a firearm is in itself reasonable suspicion for him to believe that you may be committing a crime. It's my understanding that an officer may legally perform a Terry frisk as a result of that suspicion. Once you have provided him your permit then a Terry frisk would no longer be legal, as the suspicion that a crime has been committed would no longer exist. Perhaps the simple act of stating that you have a carry permit would be enough to prevent a Terry frisk until the officer can verify your claim. I'm not quite sure, perhaps one of the LEOs here can chime in on what their training is for handling a mwag call. Either way the correct answer is if you are stopped by a LEO for carrying a firearm, be respectful of his authority and his concern for his own and public safety, tell him you have a permit, and produce it for him when asked.

The permit required to carry argument really doesn't hold up and I am surprised that people think that it does.

People think it does because the MN Supreme Court says it does. I don't much like it myself, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it. It's something you may have to deal with if you are going to legally carry a firearm in MN. Making arguments on the internet isn't going to change that.

[Seismic Sam]

Did you mean pee or pea??

The reason you haven't heard from me for 5 pages is that I just have got better things to do than argue about "coulda, woulda, shoulda" scenarios involving open carry, what the law really is, and people who get emotionally involved in a fairly technical discussion. You want an emotional issue, compare no legal carry for Minnesota citizens for 30 years with the MPPA we have now. THAT's a huge change, and was worth all the fighting and emotion that went into it. Same for Wisconsin recently, on a slightly different basis. Add to that the fact that the legalities of open carry are probably overshadowed by the risk of some perp(s) grabbing your gun, and that makes the legal issues an even lower priority. We have the right to carry concealed or openly, and if you open carry you're choosing to exist closer to a condition orange than if you were carrying concealed, and the lesser danger to you is some mall owner and/or a normal cop not interpreting the law exactly the way it should be. I can and have open carried in various public situations with quite a few people around me, and have pretty much not been noticed while I'm doing it, but in the long haul open carry simply demands too much extra concentration, awareness, and/or paranoia as far as I'm concerned, and my ego doesn't see the necessity of carrying that extra baggage around.

[tman]

I conceal when I'm not working.

I like to blend in then.

[Grayskies]

Maybe you could get a copy of the 911 call with FOIA?

[Roon]

Kind of surprised Terry v. Ohio has not been brought up. Did the officers stopping him have a reasonable suspicion based upon "specific and articulable facts" that he was committing a crime by carrying openly in the store?

Yes. Under current case law the act of carrying a firearm is in itself reasonable suspicion for him to believe that you may be committing a crime. It's my understanding that an officer may legally perform a Terry frisk as a result of that suspicion. Once you have provided him your permit then a Terry frisk would no longer be legal, as the suspicion that a crime has been committed would no longer exist. Perhaps the simple act of stating that you have a carry permit would be enough to prevent a Terry frisk until the officer can verify your claim. I'm not quite sure, perhaps one of the LEOs here can chime in on what their training is for handling a mwag call. Either way the correct answer is if you are stopped by a LEO for carrying a firearm, be respectful of his authority and his concern for his own and public safety, tell him you have a permit, and produce it for him when asked.

I was under the opposite impression. What case law are you referring to?

People think it does because the MN Supreme Court says it does. I don't much like it myself, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it. It's something you may have to deal with if you are going to legally carry a firearm in MN. Making arguments on the internet isn't going to change that.

So according to MN Supreme Court logic, stopping people to validate their ability to drive constitutes reasonable suspicion? Seems legit. ...I am sure it was mentioned here, but what case are you referring to?