Carrying a long gun in public - lawsuit filed.

[yukonjasper]

The police serve the people. The vast majority of people are scared ******* by the site of a man with a gun, not to mention AK. Not a lot of information here but it is possible that they got calls and responded. If the "activist " was decked out in the stereotypical tactical "uniform " he drew more attention to himself. Bottom line is that you can live in your fantasy world that the sheep that make up the general public and the police that "protect " them understand and agree with your Unobstructed Rights to Bear Arms, but they don't and what's worse is they have been conditioned to fear those who insist on agitating. This isn't Gay Rights or Minority rights. It's hard to find a sympathetic case when you have chuckle heads doing this kind of thing.

[PhilaBOR]

The D-bags at MN Gun Rights are all worked up over this case and are busy buying up tin foil to make hats and running around saying the sky is falling on their site!

Stop insulting D-bags by the comparison!

[PhilaBOR]

....snip.........From what I saw on tv, he just wants st cloud to remove the city ordinance. I didn't know a city can enact a law in opposite of a state law.

They can't.

The state preemption law was already posted

They can. Cities do it all the time. Rights organizations in Minnesota and across the country spend a lot of time informing cities they are in violation of state law, and if necessary suing them. In Florida they passed a great state law holding councillors and commissioners personally liable and fining them. That finally got their attention when it was their own money.

[igofast]

To be realistic about it, getting hassled by the police for carrying an AK47 out on the street is not exactly an UN predictable outcome. I'd have to assume that he took getting arrested into account when he slung that rifle and decided to go for a walk. Maybe that was even the point of the exercise.....

That's kind of the point. WHY is it predictable? Is there some dataset that indicates people legally carrying a long gun in public cause crimes or are dangerous? Is there a difference between carrying a long gun versus open-carrying a handgun? I'm not advocating that people regularly carry long guns like this, or even open carry, but when the police predictably hassle someone for a legal activity we have a problem. As others have said, now a legal activity is becoming stigmatized and criminalized. That's not good. Police should assume legality until something demonstrates otherwise. Of course, in this case we have the additional complexity of a city having a law that is not legal or authorized compounding the problem. But I'm mainly responding to Hmac's statement.

BB

That's not the way the Permit to Carry statue is written in MN. It's explicitly illegal to carry and only by showing your permit do you 'stay out of jail'. Additionally, I would expect a 'man with a gun' call by a concerned citizen to investigated.

As has been mentioned, he is going to have to prove he was harmed in some way. I don't see it.

Well, he was arrested and imprisoned. I can't determine how long.

I don't like paying my tax money to this either and initially thought 'what a dbag'. But the city was wrong, and even after being told they were wrong decided to prosecute. While I don't necessarily feel it was the smartest move initially, now I feel he absolutely should press the issue. Unless there are any other volunteers to be a test case?

[captnviper]

I haven't seen anyone dispute that he wasn't technically correct, my assertion is that if his aim was to stir up controversy, it is misguided. If he is intentionally provoking a response, that is different from a circumstances such as your example. Bottom line is I don't agree and I don't see what is to gain. His original charge was dismissed,which affirms the position. The fact that he is continuing to pursue it, smacks of narcissism.

You my friend are the one that sounds narcistic.

[yukonjasper]

So I guess having an opinion and stating it clearly and with conviction is now considered Narcissism. Interesting. What is even more telling is that I haven't seen any real and informed discussion from those who support this action.

[captnviper]

no stating your opinion on carrying a certain way is not the narcistic part.

[Bearcatrp]

You would think states would change the open carry law to open care provided its cased. With all the shootings happening around the country folks are nervous enough. If I see someone open carry down the road, I don't have a problem calling the police to check them out. Without knowing there intent, better to have the person checked out than not saying anything then finding out the person just lit up a neighborhood down the street killing many. Some days I wonder if there passing open carry laws in the hope enough shootings happen to justify taking them away. You know the saying," give a person enough rope, they eventually hang themselves".

[captnviper]

If it's legal what exactly would you report? Are there any reports of somebody openly carrying to a mass shooting? I would be doubtful as people who have such intentions don't want to draw attention to themselves till they have begun shooting.

[yukonjasper]

As has been mentioned, he is going to have to prove he was harmed in some way. I don't see it.

Well, he was arrested and imprisoned. I can't determine how long.

I don't like paying my tax money to this either and initially thought 'what a dbag'. But the city was wrong, and even after being told they were wrong decided to prosecute. While I don't necessarily feel it was the smartest move initially, now I feel he absolutely should press the issue. Unless there are any other volunteers to be a test case?

From what I've seen on this thread, there are a few Patriots here who feel strongly enough that I suspect they will strap up and test the open carry laws all over the State. Afterall, its the job of Police to know the Law and if they can catch some gung ho Barney Fife type character out there, heck, they'd be doing us all a huge favor by getting arrested and then suing the Cities. By gosh, that would teach them, you betcha. NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!!!!!!

.................and just so everyone knows, that's call Sarcasm and not directed at Igofast.

[captnviper]

I'm not sure why anybody would want to give up the advantage of somebody knowing you are armed, that being said I hate the I saw a gun call the cops! Logically, which I'm not sure applies to nut jobs criminals hide their guns.

[jshuberg]

Read the complaint. Before being arrested, the police contacted the city attorney who told them that carrying a long gun openly with permit is not a violation of the law, and that the city ordinance is void under state law. The police chose to arrest him anyway, and hold him in jail, knowing that he committed no crime. A judge later dismissed the charges, but before the dismissal paperwork was filed, the prosecutor filed the same charges a 2nd time, under a different case number, in an attempt to get a different judge.

If the plaintiffs claims are correct, and they can document it, the police and city knowingly violated his rights.

Open carrying an AK-47 is a stupid thing to do. That being said the response by the city and police is an absolutely egregious abuse of power, and while this is a civil case, really should be considered criminal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ex-LT]

You would think states would change the open carry law to open care provided its cased.

Carrying in a case is not open carry, that's enclosed carry, which is legal just about everywhere (not to mention a person would need x-ray vision to actually tell what is in the case).

[Bearcatrp]

Read the complaint. Before being arrested, the police contacted the city attorney who told them that carrying a long gun openly with permit is not a violation of the law, and that the city ordinance is void under state law. The police chose to arrest him anyway, and hold him in jail, knowing that he committed no crime. A judge later dismissed the charges, but before the dismissal paperwork was filed, the prosecutor filed the same charges a 2nd time, under a different case number, in an attempt to get a different judge.

If the plaintiffs claims are correct, and they can document it, the police and city knowingly violated his rights.

Open carrying an AK-47 is a stupid thing to do. That being said the response by the city and police is an absolutely egregious abuse of power, and while this is a civil case, really should be considered criminal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If this is the case, hope he sues for false arrest, wrongful prosecution and anything else to get a big chunk of change out of st cloud.

[jdege]