Carry at the mall.

[goaliemn]

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.

Its a crime to carry a gun in Minnesota, unless you have a permit. Currently, just over 100,000 people have permits, leaving the majority of people without permits. If they do see someone with a gun, they have to assume they aren't one of the ones with a permit, and they can approach you and ask to see your permit. You are required to present it when asked, per statute.

If they saw someone driving a car by someone who looked like they couldn't have a license (i.e. looked like they were 10) would it be incorrect for a cop to stop and ask to see a license? Its perfectly legal to drive a car, but only if you have a license.

[tman]

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

Perhaps you didn't know the State of MN does NOT mention the right to bear arms in its Constitution.

It also seems to me that police officers and security guards a poor audience for your gun rights education classes.

Why DID you run away when you were presented an opportunity to CONTINUE to carry, simply by untucking your shirt?

I mean, you WERE wearing a shirt, right? OMG, don't tell me you had a drop thigh rig! I could see how that would not lend itself to concealibility.


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

[Roon]

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.

Its a crime to carry a gun in Minnesota, unless you have a permit. Currently, just over 100,000 people have permits, leaving the majority of people without permits. If they do see someone with a gun, they have to assume they aren't one of the ones with a permit, and they can approach you and ask to see your permit. You are required to present it when asked, per statute.

If they saw someone driving a car by someone who looked like they couldn't have a license (i.e. looked like they were 10) would it be incorrect for a cop to stop and ask to see a license? Its perfectly legal to drive a car, but only if you have a license.

In the case of someone looking like they are 10, that would be an invalid reason for a stop. An officers "gut feeling" does not constitute probable cause or a "reasonable suspicion". MN Statue is subject to the same 4th amendment rulings by the SCOTUS that everything else is.

[Roon]

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

Perhaps you didn't know the State of MN does NOT mention the right to bear arms in its Constitution.

It also seems to me that police officers and security guards a poor audience for your gun rights education classes.

Why DID you run away when you were presented an opportunity to CONTINUE to carry, simply by untucking your shirt?

I mean, you WERE wearing a shirt, right? OMG, don't tell me you had a drop thigh rig! I could see how that would not lend itself to concealibility.


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

What the MN Constitution does or does not mention is irrelevant when it comes to the right to bear arms. I understand what you are trying to say, but the Constitution of the United States of America > MN Constitution.

A drop thigh rig would be quite the sight at the mall!

[tman]

What the MN Constitution does or does not mention is irrelevant when it comes to the right to bear arms. I understand what you are trying to say, but the Constitution of the United States of America > MN Constitution.

I guess we're back to those pesky "reasonable restrictions" allowed by the Supreme Court again, I guess.


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

[Roon]

What the MN Constitution does or does not mention is irrelevant when it comes to the right to bear arms. I understand what you are trying to say, but the Constitution of the United States of America > MN Constitution.

I guess we're back to those pesky "reasonable restrictions" allowed by the Supreme Court again, I guess.


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

I guess once they define "reasonable restrictions" to mean "carrying a gun is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed" then you would be correct. I have a feeling it will be a cold day in hell before that happens due to the implications such a ruling would have throughout the realm of lawful activities.

My main point being, if you do not have STRICT controls on what officers can and can not do(No gut feeling nonsense), you end up with the TSA and fusion centers and all sorts of nonsense. Being a cop is a tough job and I have nothing but respect for them, but the cold hard truth of the matter is that it is not a citizens job to make an officers life easier. The Constitution is in place for a reason and that is to control the power of government and its agents (Cops.).

[tman]

My main point being, if you do not have STRICT controls on what officers can and can not do(No gut feeling nonsense)...

Agreed; "gut feelings" won't hold up in court.

"Reasonable, articulable suspicion," however, is OBJECTIVE, and it is a standard that's less than probable cause.

Being a cop is a tough job and I have nothing but respect for them,

Thank you.


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

[texasprowler]

Bstrawse asked about my private property summation -

I know, I couldn't get the connection either why the word trespass had anything to do with the police requiring me to conceal.

And to limit my right to carry to conceal only? What else can they limit, number of bullets, leather holsters, or trigger locks?

[jshuberg]

I understand what you are trying to say, but the Constitution of the United States of America > MN Constitution.

Correct, and if the US Supreme Court ever finds that carrying a firearm outside the home is a protected fundamental right (which I hope they will), then many state laws, including here in MN would have to be reevaluated. Unfortunately this hasn't happened yet.

Currently in MN it is a illegal to carry a firearm in public. However a person with a carry permit is an exception to this law, and cannot commit the offense by reason of having a valid permit. You can shake your fist at the sky all day, even post things on the interwebs. Unless you have very deep pockets and want to be a test case, I suggest that you simply acknowledge that the law is what it is and act appropriately.

This is not really much of an issue if you conceal. If you open carry you should be aware that you may be approached by police. They may frisk you. They will demand you produce your permit and government issued ID. They may require you to sign your name in their presence. They may ask you to submit to a breathalyzer. An over zealous officer may draw on you, put you on the ground and cuff you awaiting confirmation of your valid permit. If you don't want these things to happen to you, the answer is simple - don't open carry.

[Roon]

I understand what you are trying to say, but the Constitution of the United States of America > MN Constitution.

Correct, and if the US Supreme Court ever finds that carrying a firearm outside the home is a protected fundamental right (which I hope they will), then many state laws, including here in MN would have to be reevaluated. Unfortunately this hasn't happened yet.

Currently in MN it is a illegal to carry a firearm in public. However a person with a carry permit is an exception to this law, and cannot commit the offense by reason of having a valid permit. You can shake your fist at the sky all day, even post things on the interwebs. Unless you have very deep pockets and want to be a test case, I suggest that you simply acknowledge that the law is what it is and act appropriately.

This is not really much of an issue if you conceal. If you open carry you should be aware that you may be approached by police. They may frisk you. They will demand you produce your permit and government issued ID. They may require you to sign your name in their presence. They may ask you to submit to a breathalyzer. An over zealous officer may draw on you, put you on the ground and cuff you awaiting confirmation of your valid permit. If you don't want these things to happen to you, the answer is simple - don't open carry.

We should test this out, Tman you should start pulling people over and writing big tickets with the reason for the initial stop being that you wanted to make sure they had a license. Lets see how long before you are on admin leave.

[Roon]

This is not really much of an issue if you conceal. If you open carry you should be aware that you may be approached by police. They may frisk you. They will demand you produce your permit and government issued ID. They may require you to sign your name in their presence. They may ask you to submit to a breathalyzer. An over zealous officer may draw on you, put you on the ground and cuff you awaiting confirmation of your valid permit. If you don't want these things to happen to you, the answer is simple - don't open carry.

I just wanted to call attention to how dangerous this line of thinking is. "If you don't want to be harassed for being a law abiding citizen, simply be a law abiding citizen in the way officers want you to be.". Really?

[jshuberg]

There is not a general prohibition against driving a car in MN. There is a general prohibition against carrying a firearm in MN.

[texasprowler]

Tman- returning my gun to my vehicle seemed the best way to make the cops happy and continue shopping, resolving everyone's concerns. The shirt covered only half of the gun on a standard belt holster.

Btw, I do believe the officers were actually being helpful by suggesting I pacify mall security, and had no inclination to file any complaint.
Without ginned up outrage, I wouldn't have got much response. I came to this site expecting other gun toters who may have had complications with the lawmen, instead I found educated law people who have answered my questions quite nicely.

[jgalt]

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.

2nd Amendment =/ right to carry. No one in the founding generation (the writers & ratifiers of the 2A...) thought it did, and there is no legal precedent anywhere that says it is now. There have always been what are called "time and manner" restrictions on who may carry deadly weapons, when they may be carried and where...

That does not mean that most / any of those restrictions make any sense, or that we should be content with their existence. It does however mean that the 2nd Amendment is not the solution you think it is...

[jshuberg]

2nd Amendment =/ right to carry. No one in the founding generation (the writers & ratifiers of the 2A...) thought it did, and there is no legal precedent anywhere that says it is now.

I wouldn't go that far: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30250&p=344215#p344215

There is in fact plenty of evidence that the right to carry a firearm outside ones home for protection/hunting/defense was the the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. There are always reasonable restrictions that can be applied to rights, but an outright prohibition was never the intent. Given the recent successes of Heller and McDonald, it's reasonable to believe that the court may eventually correctly find that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That would be a very good day