Carry at the mall.

[tman]

I think what people sometime focus on in this statute are the words lawful demand, and since a LEO can't walk up to anybody on the street and ask to see ID without cause, the fact that someone is carrying shouldn't change that.

In this case they were responding to a "man with a gun" call.

Find me a court that would say responding to ANY call about a man with a gun in a public place didn't constitute the prerequisite "lawful demand."

[texasprowler]

Wow. Very impressed with all the useful information. I should concede that the police probably did their job correctly and apologize as I am ignorant of the way y'all do things around these parts.

My original point was that a call about a friendly shopper with a sidearm could devolve into an arrest of the officers choosing, most likely trespassing, which validates the point that the police can do anything they want and I pay the price.

Had the complaint been about a trespasser on private property, and the owner had asked me to leave, and I didn't, then they would have a cause.

Perhaps the police should have articulated reasonable suspicion that I was committing some crime, then I wouldn't have been so confused about it all. It just seemed like harassment since I wasn't doing anything illegal.

Beyond my scope, but I wonder how MN ID requirement, and the view that mere possession of a firearm warrants a stop and search, stacks up to Delaware v Prouse, Hiibel v Nevada, Brown v Texas of USSC, or US v Deberry of 7th circuit court. Someone other than me will find out the expensive way.
I will just go about my passive life and do whatever I am told.

Thanks again.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[cobb]

I will just go about my passive life and do whatever I am told.

Now don't go to extremes.

[CarryCauseICan]

Texas, Take your Grand worth of clothing back. Politely explain why you need to return the stuff, and that you are going down to scheels to spend it. Buy your self something nice from me too!

[Kahr]

OK. Unlawful stop.

According to MN 624.714 Subd. 1a. it is a crime to carry a pistol on or about your clothes in a public place unless you have a permit. The police are well within the law to approach and question you as to whether you have a valid permit or not to determine if you are committing crime. When someone is carrying a firearm, until you produce a permit it can and often is treated as a crime. This is unfortunate but true.

Maybe it's just in the way you chose to word it, but I am going to respectfully disagree with how you are relaying this particular statue. It is not a crime to carry a gun, it is a crime to carry a gun without a Gov. issued ID and Permit. A LEO is NOT treating you like you broke the law prior to verifying your permit and ID status he is simply responding to the call. How they respond to that call is determined on how the call came in "man with a gun" and even at that I have personal experience that if an LEO arrives and doesn't see "a mad mad waving a gun around" he will likely approach you as any other call, tactfully and respectfully and in this case immediately asking for ID and permit.

An LEO doesn't need reasonable cause to talk to anyone, they need it to do a traffic stop, or enter a home, or search ....

[Kahr]

I will also add that the way in which an Officer may respond to a call, may also vary by geographical location.....

[jgalt]

Wow. Very impressed with all the useful information. I should concede that the police probably did their job correctly and apologize as I am ignorant of the way y'all do things around these parts.

My original point was that a call about a friendly shopper with a sidearm could devolve into an arrest of the officers choosing, most likely trespassing, which validates the point that the police can do anything they want and I pay the price.

Had the complaint been about a trespasser on private property, and the owner had asked me to leave, and I didn't, then they would have a cause.

Perhaps the police should have articulated reasonable suspicion that I was committing some crime, then I wouldn't have been so confused about it all. It just seemed like harassment since I wasn't doing anything illegal.

Now, if your original post had included sentiments similar to the above, rather than "concealing is what criminals do", I think you'd find that most here would agree with you...

Of course it sucks when folks who have done nothing wrong are "harassed" (term used very loosely...) by police, and your analogy to all drivers being stopped to see if they have a license is a good one. However, tman is also dead-on with his question re: police response to "man w/a gun" calls.

The root of the problem you described stems from the general population, not from the police. I suspect you in do in fact want police to respond to mwag calls. Your real complaint is with non-police who make the call in first place when the mwag - you, in this case - isn't actually doing anything wrong...

While it is in theory possible to train LEOs to observe the subject of a mwag call prior to interacting with them, and simply ignore the folks who aren't acting suspiciously on the assumption that they are permit holders, in practice that'll never happen. At least not so long as there is a requirement for anyone carrying to have a permit.

The advice given earlier - if you don't want to deal w/police, don't open carry; if you open carry, expect to deal w/police - should not be taken as a "sheepish" reaction by Minnesotans, but rather a reflection of the reality 'on the ground' here. Whether or not that 'reality' is good or bad can certainly be debated, but what it actually is can not...

[Grayskies]

how the call came in "man with a gun" and even at that I have personal experience that if an LEO arrives and doesn't see "a mad mad waving a gun around" he will likely approach you as any other call, tactfully and respectfully and in this case immediately asking for ID and permit.

There is lots of evidence on this forum and others that interaction with cops depends alot on who the cop is and were the cops works. I am sure you can find the video of the permit holder being beaten by Minneapolis cops.

[Countryfried Frank]

I will just go about my passive life and do whatever I am told.

No one here wants that. To be completely honest every respondent, myself included, is trying to help. The members of this board are well and fully capable of piling on the new guy coming in with an attitude and that has not what's happening here. My read on the general consensus is that in a perfect world your situation would not have happened but it's not a perfect world and we want to offer some guidance on how to deal with it and where the issue actually lies.. MN GORCA has some good info and is a good place to get more info and guidance regarding your situation.

By the way, welcome MGT.

[Kahr]

how the call came in "man with a gun" and even at that I have personal experience that if an LEO arrives and doesn't see "a mad mad waving a gun around" he will likely approach you as any other call, tactfully and respectfully and in this case immediately asking for ID and permit.

There is lots of evidence on this forum and others that interaction with cops depends alot on who the cop is and were the cops works. I am sure you can find the video of the permit holder being beaten by Minneapolis cops.

Thus my follow up post. Which you conviently left out...

[Grayskies]

how the call came in "man with a gun" and even at that I have personal experience that if an LEO arrives and doesn't see "a mad mad waving a gun around" he will likely approach you as any other call, tactfully and respectfully and in this case immediately asking for ID and permit.

There is lots of evidence on this forum and others that interaction with cops depends alot on who the cop is and were the cops works. I am sure you can find the video of the permit holder being beaten by Minneapolis cops.

Thus my follow up post. Which you conviently left out...

Not conviently, I missed it. and it was probably posted while I was writing my post.

I have a pretty bad migrain aswell.

[jshuberg]

Maybe it's just in the way you chose to word it, but I am going to respectfully disagree with how you are relaying this particular statue. It is not a crime to carry a gun, it is a crime to carry a gun without a Gov. issued ID and Permit.

Does the phrase "without a permit" in Minn.St. 624.714, subd. 1, add an element to the crime, or does it only create an exception to the general prohibition against possessing a pistol in certain places?

The better view is that "without a permit" is an exception. First, the defendant has the immediate opportunity to present his permit, if he has one, and thus avoid prosecution under the statute. There is nothing inherently unfair in requiring persons charged under the statute to present their permits. Second, the statute is intended to prevent the possession of firearms in places where they are most likely to cause harm in the wrong hands, i. e., in public places where their discharge may injure or kill intended or unintended victims. The only exception to this rule is for persons who have demonstrated a need or purpose for carrying firearms and have shown their responsibility to the police in obtaining a permit. The statute is therefore properly characterized as a "general prohibition": Anyone having a firearm in a public place may be prosecuted if he has no permit. "Without a permit" is not an element of the crime, but only indicates that some persons cannot commit the offense by reason of having a valid permit.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xm ... -1950-1985

The MN Supreme Court disagrees with you. The legal presumption is that if you are carrying a firearm in public that you may have committed a crime. The burden of proof is on you to be able to demonstrate that you have a permit, and are therefor carrying under a statutory exception. While I would hope and expect that any LEO responding to a person with a firearm to be polite and professional, it is expected for them to suspect that you may have broken the law until you can produce your permit.

It's not exactly how I would like it be be, but it is the law.

[jgalt]

Does the phrase "without a permit" in Minn.St. 624.714, subd. 1, add an element to the crime, or does it only create an exception to the general prohibition against possessing a pistol in certain places?

The better view is that "without a permit" is an exception. First, the defendant has the immediate opportunity to present his permit, if he has one, and thus avoid prosecution under the statute. There is nothing inherently unfair in requiring persons charged under the statute to present their permits. Second, the statute is intended to prevent the possession of firearms in places where they are most likely to cause harm in the wrong hands, i. e., in public places where their discharge may injure or kill intended or unintended victims. The only exception to this rule is for persons who have demonstrated a need or purpose for carrying firearms and have shown their responsibility to the police in obtaining a permit. The statute is therefore properly characterized as a "general prohibition": Anyone having a firearm in a public place may be prosecuted if he has no permit. "Without a permit" is not an element of the crime, but only indicates that some persons cannot commit the offense by reason of having a valid permit.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xm ... -1950-1985

The MN Supreme Court disagrees with you. The legal presumption is that if you are carrying a firearm in public that you may have committed a crime. The burden of proof is on you to be able to demonstrate that you have a permit, and are therefor carrying under a statutory exception. While I would hope and expect that any LEO responding to a person with a firearm to be polite and professional, it is expected for them to suspect that you may have broken the law until you can produce your permit.

I'm not going to disagree with your interpretation, as it seems likely you are correct. However, because of the highlighted portion above, I'd argue that the '77 case should no longer be considered precedent, as there is no longer a requirement to either "demonstrate a need" or "show responsibility to the police" prior to obtaining a permit. (One could argue that taking and "passing" a permit course "shows responsibility" to the police, but it doesn't - at least not in the same way that would have been required prior to 2005.) I'd argue the purpose of the statute has changed as well...

The change from "may issue" to "shall issue" should render this precedent moot.

It's not exactly how I would like it be be, but it is the law.

Well no, it isn't actually. It is how a particular MNSC interpreted the law as it stood in 1977, and until it is changed, it certainly is precedent for lower courts. But judicial opinion / interpretation / precedent is not the same as law.

I understand it may be a fine distinction, but it is far from unimportant...

[CarryCauseICan]

I wish we could hear the call in to 911... Maybe it went something like this...
911- 911...
PacSun- Hello this is xxxx at PacSun in the RiverHills Mall...
911- Yes...
PacSun- Um? There's a man with a gun in our store...
911- Can you describe him?...
Pacsun- Um? Yes. He's a Middle age White Man, about six feet tall, he's standing by his wife and children, while one of them seems to be trying on clothes in the changing room!
911- Where is the gun now?...
Pacsun- Um? its in some kind of containment device strapped to his belt on his hip...
Um? Hurry! It looks like they're checking out and heading over to Tradehome Shoe's!...
911- Ok Miss, police are on their way...

[jshuberg]

However, because of the highlighted portion above, I'd argue that the '77 case should no longer be considered precedent, as there is no longer a requirement to either "demonstrate a need" or "show responsibility to the police" prior to obtaining a permit... The change from "may issue" to "shall issue" should render this precedent moot.

Subdivision 1. Penalty. A person, other than a law. enforcement officer who has authority to make arrests other than citizens arrests, who carries, holds or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile or boat, or on or about his clothes or person, or otherwise in his possession or control in a public place or public area without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person who has been issued a permit and who engages in activities other than those for which the permit has been issued, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Subdivision 1. [Repealed, 2003 c 28 art 2 s 35; 2005 c 83 s 1]
Subd. 1a. Permit required; penalty. A person, other than a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person's clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place, as defined in section 624.7181, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time is guilty of a felony.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... &year=1976
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... &year=2008

I'm not a lawyer, and I usually avoid making amateur legal interpretations, but I'd tend to agree with you that the court precedent should no longer be valid. The Supreme Courts interpretation in 1977 was of 624.714 subd 1, which was repealed in 2003, and replaced with 624.714 subd 1a. The wording is similar but not exactly the same, and the context is different. Should a Supreme Court interpretation based on a subdivision that was repealed still hold? Somehow, it appears it does:

Timberlake’s holding rests on the supreme court’s reasoning that lacking a handgun permit is not an element of the crime of carrying a gun in a public place; rather, having a permit is a mere exception to the crime. Id. at 396. So police developed reasonable suspicion that Timberlake’s conduct met all the elements of the crime because he was reportedly carrying his handgun in a public place.

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/docume ... 1-1008.pdf

So the 1977 Supreme Court interpretation is still being treated as case law as recently as June of this year, despite the fact it was an interpretation of a subdivision that was repealed. It seems wrong to me, but I don't get to make the rules.

So it is still case law that carrying a firearm in public is reason enough for a LEO to suspect that a crime is being committed. Yeah, it sucks, but it is what it is until someone is stupid enough to be a test case and challenge it.