Carrying a long gun in public - lawsuit filed.

[bstrawse]

We weren't aware of this case but the state pre-emption law is quite clear on this issue as has been noted above.

Bryan

[wasfuzz]

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!

[yukonjasper]

D-BAG move. If you are planning to be a test case, consult with some people smarter than you and figure out if you do win your specific fight, .

You assume he didn't. I suspect not everyone in the state checks with you personally. I know, it might be hard to believe.

I can bet he didn't check with anyone. Not that he has to but I can't imagine anyone who worked hard to get the current laws in place egging him on. The negative impact far outweigh anything positive. As mentioned the preemption was already in place and affirmed. The St Cloud police made a mistake. They were informed of the mistake. Galante hero for all of our rights was released. So he suing for what- hurt feelings-to point out how stupid the police are? I wish people would check with someone with an IQ greater than their shoe size. Common sense would tell you that this is not a good idea. If it was unintentional, slightly different, but still pretty stupid.

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

[Randygmn]

A right not exercised will surely be lost or taken away. Just because some don't see the utility of having this right (that is essentially true if you feel it's "stupid" to exercise it", doesn't mean it's important to retain it. That's it in a nutshell. There doesn't need to be anymore analyzing or discussion. Those that want to infringe, MUST be stopped. NOT ONE MORE INCH.

[yukonjasper]

Well we know who to cast for 300 The Sequel. None of the HARDCORES have explained what is to be gained. Exactly what impact will this have to advance the Second Amendment rights? Conversely, look at the potential for harm to the rights already in place that clearly allows someone to do just as he did. All changes were dropped because he had the technical right to do it. So he wins, what does it prove? The publicity stunt draws more attention to the issue than is warranted and gives the anti crowd something to rally behind and question.

[george]

Sounds pretty liberal to me, explain why you can do something that you can legally do or you shouldn't do it, ..what?
What would stop any City or municipality from doing the same thing if there is never any penalty for doing it in my opinion that would be good enough reason.
What I would like to know is if he incurred any expenses defending himself over this thing and if he did he should have every right to recoup them.

[Ghost]

It's times like this when you must realize nearly everything in this world would be better if people learned to MYOB, police included

[wasfuzz]

It's times like this when you must realize nearly everything in this world would be better if people learned to MYOB, police included

I hope next time you need a cop - "he MYOB", let me know how that works out for you!!

[Bearcatrp]

Police could have check the law when they confronted the guy instead of arresting him, putting the incident on record (which can't be removed, just show dismissed), which could stop him from getting a potential job if they run a record check. I don't see the point in pushing the limits of the law but thats up to the individual to make that decision. Not mine. 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.

[Ghost]

It's times like this when you must realize nearly everything in this world would be better if people learned to MYOB, police included

I hope next time you need a cop - "he MYOB", let me know how that works out for you!!

That falls in the exemption, but people who aren't causing a problem should be left alone. When was the last time a mass murderer walked all the way through town slung up and then started a rampage?

This now makes me want to watch rampage again.

[Hmac]

It's times like this when you must realize nearly everything in this world would be better if people learned to MYOB, police included

I hope next time you need a cop - "he MYOB", let me know how that works out for you!!

uh...what? If the guy need a cop, that IS the cop's business, right?

[Hmac]

Police could have check the law when they confronted the guy instead of arresting him, putting the incident on record (which can't be removed, just show dismissed), which could stop him from getting a potential job if they run a record check. I don't see the point in pushing the limits of the law but thats up to the individual to make that decision. Not mine. 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.

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.....

[jdege]

Police could have check the law when they confronted the guy instead of arresting him, putting the incident on record (which can't be removed, just show dismissed), which could stop him from getting a potential job if they run a record check. I don't see the point in pushing the limits of the law but thats up to the individual to make that decision. Not mine. 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.

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.....

The guy I talked to, years back, had just wanted to go hunting on public land, and decided to walk the two miles to get there.

He had no reason to believe that he would be naked by the police for doing something that was explicitly legal under statute. I think that assuming that the guy in this case was looking for trouble is premature. He may have been, but there is no evidence for that in the news reports.

[BigBlue]

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

[farmerj]

....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