Carry at the mall.

[jshuberg]

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

Perhaps you should first read a thread before commenting on it: viewtopic.php?f=52&t=32661&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p377861

[jgalt]

Perhaps I have a pee brain inside my thick skull.

Perhaps...

[Roon]

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

Perhaps you should first read a thread before commenting on it: viewtopic.php?f=52&t=32661&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p377861

Thanks for posting that again, no need to be a dick and take a tone though.

That is a pretty dangerous ruling or interpretation of that ruling. It has not been challenged and I HIGHLY doubt it would hold up to a challenge. You can't with a straight face tell me that a presumption of guilt as the justification for a stop would hold up in court.

Judge - "Why exactly did you stop this gentleman officer?"
Cop - "He had a gun and I assumed he was guilty of a crime."
Judge - "Oh? What exactly about carrying a gun is illegal?"
Cop - "Ummm, its illegal if you don't have a permit."
Judge - "So are a lot of things, what exactly justified your stop?"
Cop - "But your honor, he had a gun!"
Judge - "Case dismissed."

[bstrawse]

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?

Minnesota is in the 8th circuit. A 7th circuit case holds no water here. In any event, you have a state statute that specifically authorizes the sort of action that the police took in your situation. There's not a civil rights violation here.

b

[bstrawse]

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."

Not necessary in this case. Police have the right under state statute to inquire of the legal status of any permit holder. Reasonable suspicion is not required.
b

[bstrawse]

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)

If you are carrying a firearm in Minnesota, you must disclose to the police if asked - and you must produce a permit and ID. This is outlined pretty clearly in Minnesota statute (see MN 624.714).

How exactly were the police limiting your right to carry? You left on your own volition. Though I would heartily agree that the police interaction should have been over once they verified that your permit was valid.

b

[bstrawse]

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.

I don't at all understand your summation or think it has any connection to what we're talking about here.
b

[bstrawse]

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

Since FOIA is for federal agencies, I'd recommend the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act But yeah, right idea!
b

[bstrawse]

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

Perhaps you should first read a thread before commenting on it: viewtopic.php?f=52&t=32661&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p377861

Thanks for posting that again, no need to be a dick and take a tone though.

That is a pretty dangerous ruling or interpretation of that ruling. It has not been challenged and I HIGHLY doubt it would hold up to a challenge. You can't with a straight face tell me that a presumption of guilt as the justification for a stop would hold up in court.

Judge - "Why exactly did you stop this gentleman officer?"
Cop - "He had a gun and I assumed he was guilty of a crime."
Judge - "Oh? What exactly about carrying a gun is illegal?"
Cop - "Ummm, its illegal if you don't have a permit."
Judge - "So are a lot of things, what exactly justified your stop?"
Cop - "But your honor, he had a gun!"
Judge - "Case dismissed."

It would be more like this

Judge: "Why did you stop this gentleman?"
Officer - "When responding to a man with a gun call at the XXXXXX mall, I observed an individual open carrying a firearm. I then approached him and asked for him to give me his permit to carry and government ID as authorized under MN 624.714 so that I could verify he was lawfully carrying the firearm in Minnesota. "

That discussion would stop there - it's not going to end the way you think it is.
b

[jshuberg]

Thanks for posting that again, no need to be a dick and take a tone though.

No problem. Let me know if there is anything else you need reposted, I know how difficult it can be to click the back button. Oh jeez, does that make me a dick? Damn!

You can't with a straight face tell me that a presumption of guilt as the justification for a stop would hold up in court.

It's not a presumption of guilt, its a suspicion of a crime. There is a big difference, and yes it has and does stand up in court, as recently as June of this year.

Judge - "Oh? What exactly about carrying a gun is illegal?"
Cop - "Ummm, its illegal if you don't have a permit."

Nope. Carrying a firearm in public is a crime, and not having a permit is not an element of the crime. Having a permit is a statutory exception where a permit holder is exempt from committing the crime. So Sayeth the MN Supreme Court.

We may not like the law, or how a particular court interprets it. However knowing the law is the responsibility of every permit holder. I'm simply trying to correct what appears to be a fairly common misconception in this thread. We may want it to be the way you are arguing, but at the end of the day what any of us might want doesn't change anything.

The guy that was asked to leave the mall while open carrying simply didn't understand MN law, and saw abuse of power of the police when it doesn't appear there was any.

[Roon]

It would be more like this

Judge: "Why did you stop this gentleman?"
Officer - "When responding to a man with a gun call at the XXXXXX mall, I observed an individual open carrying a firearm. I then approached him and asked for him to give me his permit to carry and government ID as authorized under MN 624.714 so that I could verify he was lawfully carrying the firearm in Minnesota. "

That discussion would stop there - it's not going to end the way you think it is.
b

You suggesting that State statute is > Supreme Court decisions?

Try telling that to the pot growers in California that got raided.

[Roon]

It's not a presumption of guilt, its a suspicion of a crime. There is a big difference, and yes it has and does stand up in court, as recently as June of this year.

Seems to me someone that can afford a lot of justice could very easily win a case where the 2nd ammendment is suspicion of a crime. Seems to me the MN Supreme Court would get its hand slapped by big poppa SCOTUS.

Nope. Carrying a firearm in public is a crime, and not having a permit is not an element of the crime. Having a permit is a statutory exception where a permit holder is exempt from committing the crime. So Sayeth the MN Supreme Court.

We may not like the law, or how a particular court interprets it. However knowing the law is the responsibility of every permit holder. I'm simply trying to correct what appears to be a fairly common misconception in this thread. We may want it to be the way you are arguing, but at the end of the day what any of us might want doesn't change anything.

The guy that was asked to leave the mall while open carrying simply didn't understand MN law, and saw abuse of power of the police when it doesn't appear there was any.

I am simply trying to discuss the issues and not who was right or wrong in this instance. It is my understanding that any and all SCOTUS rulings preempt any State statute and as such Terry v. Ohio would definitely apply. Not sure 12 reasonable people would believe that carrying a gun is suspicion of a crime as by the logic used, driving a car would also be suspicion of a crime, as would taking pictures of small children and any other activity in which there is a criminal element to it.

[tman]

It's not a presumption of guilt, its a suspicion of a crime. There is a big difference, and yes it has and does stand up in court, as recently as June of this year.

Seems to me someone that can afford a lot of justice could very easily win a case where the 2nd ammendment is suspicion of a crime. Seems to me the MN Supreme Court would get its hand slapped by big poppa SCOTUS.

Nope. Carrying a firearm in public is a crime, and not having a permit is not an element of the crime. Having a permit is a statutory exception where a permit holder is exempt from committing the crime. So Sayeth the MN Supreme Court.

We may not like the law, or how a particular court interprets it. However knowing the law is the responsibility of every permit holder. I'm simply trying to correct what appears to be a fairly common misconception in this thread. We may want it to be the way you are arguing, but at the end of the day what any of us might want doesn't change anything.

The guy that was asked to leave the mall while open carrying simply didn't understand MN law, and saw abuse of power of the police when it doesn't appear there was any.

I am simply trying to discuss the issues and not who was right or wrong in this instance. It is my understanding that any and all SCOTUS rulings preempt any State statute and as such Terry v. Ohio would definitely apply. Not sure 12 reasonable people would believe that carrying a gun is suspicion of a crime as by the logic used, driving a car would also be suspicion of a crime, as would taking pictures of small children and any other activity in which there is a criminal element to it.

Keeping the discussion to "carrying in public," you have to set aside taking pictures of children.

Terry v Ohio addressed "stop and frisk" when there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed. A warrantless search, in actuality.

Demanding one's permit and photo ID is NOT the equivalent. There is NO 2nd Amendment or 4th Amendment issue here. The Supreme Court has allowed "reasonable restrictions" to the 2nd Amendment as well. Perhaps you'll accept "stop and ID" in that light.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

[texasprowler]

With all the help from the legal guys here, I can now sum up my fourth amendment questions:

The "Right To Carry" in MN isn't a right, nor a privelage like driving, but rather it is a crime to carry. Good case to conceal.

I will have to find another way to educate folks about guns.... maybe stick drawings.

Did I mention 'backwards' in another context?

[Roon]

It's not a presumption of guilt, its a suspicion of a crime. There is a big difference, and yes it has and does stand up in court, as recently as June of this year.

Seems to me someone that can afford a lot of justice could very easily win a case where the 2nd ammendment is suspicion of a crime. Seems to me the MN Supreme Court would get its hand slapped by big poppa SCOTUS.

Nope. Carrying a firearm in public is a crime, and not having a permit is not an element of the crime. Having a permit is a statutory exception where a permit holder is exempt from committing the crime. So Sayeth the MN Supreme Court.

We may not like the law, or how a particular court interprets it. However knowing the law is the responsibility of every permit holder. I'm simply trying to correct what appears to be a fairly common misconception in this thread. We may want it to be the way you are arguing, but at the end of the day what any of us might want doesn't change anything.

The guy that was asked to leave the mall while open carrying simply didn't understand MN law, and saw abuse of power of the police when it doesn't appear there was any.

I am simply trying to discuss the issues and not who was right or wrong in this instance. It is my understanding that any and all SCOTUS rulings preempt any State statute and as such Terry v. Ohio would definitely apply. Not sure 12 reasonable people would believe that carrying a gun is suspicion of a crime as by the logic used, driving a car would also be suspicion of a crime, as would taking pictures of small children and any other activity in which there is a criminal element to it.

Keeping the discussion to "carrying in public," you have to set aside taking pictures of children.

Terry v Ohio addressed "stop and frisk" when there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed. A warrantless search, in actuality.

Demanding one's permit and photo ID is NOT the equivalent. There is NO 2nd Amendment or 4th Amendment issue here. The Supreme Court has allowed "reasonable restrictions" to the 2nd Amendment as well. Perhaps you'll accept "stop and ID" in that light.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

I would accept that, save for the fact that you can refuse to give ID to an officer if no crime has been committed. You are not required to provide anything to them unless there is a reason for them to ID you (you are suspected of a crime). If the reason for the stop is invalid (carrying a gun in public) then so is the demand for ID.

I am no lawyer, but federal rulings and law have always trumped State statutes have they not? You could perhaps argue that given the MN Supreme Court ruling he was indeed violating the law and thus justified the encounter, but you then run into the issue of a lawful activity being classified as "suspicion of a crime" and the SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions (mostly pertaining to traffic stops) that this is not the case.