Carrying a long gun in public - lawsuit filed.

[mrp]

An interesting case.

http://www.kare11.com/news/local/man-su ... /176700361

Any bets on how it's going to shake out?

On the one hand, he didn't violate state law. On the other, the long guns statute doesn't claim exclusivity, so it isn't clear that a city can't enforce a long gun ordinance.

I'd love to hear what the negotiations/discussions were like when this was added to the statute on carrying long guns in public. If it wasn't the legislature's intent to allow the carry of long guns, why add this to the long gun statute?

(3) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun by a person who has a permit under section 624.714;

[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, what did you accomplish? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just waiting for the OPEN CARRY crowd to pile in and laud this joker for being the standard bearer for Open Carry rights and how we should all thank him for being courageous enough to do this for ALL of us. I really don't understand what the point of it is. Is there a population out there just dying to carry loaded rifles slung over their shoulders. I can't imagine a more uncomfortable or inconvenient form of personal protection. But my guess is that it really isn't about that and more about the look at me factor...................

As you can tell, I'm not an Open Carry guy, but then again I also am not a bumper sticker guy either. There are just some people who can't leave well enough alone, this type of thing just puts the whole issue of Carry Rights on the front page of the papers and on the news. Counterproductive in my opinion.

[INOR]

^^^This^^^

[george]

I hope he eats them up, it just goes to show if someone says something enough times it becomes true. A permit to carry just because they put pistol on the permit card and you say it enough times doesn't make it law. Again I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
And why would he, why not it's his right are we going to give up those rights Because a bunch of anti-gun people on a gun Forum don't like it? Sure is a lot of people on this forum dictating what they think is the law because that's the way they want it.
If people don't like it the way it is, change it don't make up new ones.

[xd ED]

How will this shake out??
Next session there will be an attempt to restrict/ remove/ eliminate the liberties of the MPPA.

[xd ED]

I hope he eats them up, it just goes to show if someone says something enough times it becomes true. A permit to carry just because they put pistol on the permit card and you say it enough times doesn't make it law. Again I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
And why would he, why not it's his right are we going to give up those rights Because a bunch of anti-gun people on a gun Forum don't like it? Sure is a lot of people on this forum dictating what they think is the law because that's the way they want it.
If people don't like it the way it is, change it don't make up new ones.

How do you believe this dork was harmed?
What loss did he suffer that entities him to my money?

All those antigun types have more time on their hands than most of us do. This kind of crap is a rallying point for them.

[jdege]

An interesting case.
On the one hand, he didn't violate state law. On the other, the long guns statute doesn't claim exclusivity, so it isn't clear that a city can't enforce a long gun ordinance.

Actually, it is clear.

Minn. Stat. 471.633 FIREARMS.

The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:

(a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and

(b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.

Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

[yukonjasper]

I hope he eats them up, it just goes to show if someone says something enough times it becomes true. A permit to carry just because they put pistol on the permit card and you say it enough times doesn't make it law. Again I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
And why would he, why not it's his right are we going to give up those rights Because a bunch of anti-gun people on a gun Forum don't like it? Sure is a lot of people on this forum dictating what they think is the law because that's the way they want it.
If people don't like it the way it is, change it don't make up new ones.

Predictable. I never said it was illegal nor did I say it should be illegal. I simply stated that it was stupid.I'll ask the question again, what is gained by challenging this city ordinance? Are there large numbers of people who really really want to carry long guns for personal protection? As was said, all this will do is give the anti gun movement a target to go after a law that is actually prettywell written. They use these extreme cases to frighten people and lead them to believe everyone in the Carry community is secretly waiting to carry"assault type weapons ". All it takes is some moron to get the anti s stirred up and you're back to battling because of public outcry.

You know what, if I have to explain it to you, you'll never understand.

[george]

I'm sure this guy's attorney didn't work for free so I'm sure you have some cost involved.
Now if a municipality gets away with this kind of thing with ordinances against state law what's to keep them from passing ordinances against brandishing of a firearm for printing on a shirt similar to what Florida had for years. You could then be fined and your permit revoked.
After all it is a conceal and carry permit like everybody says all the time.

[jdege]

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, what did you accomplish? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just waiting for the OPEN CARRY crowd to pile in and laud this joker for being the standard bearer for Open Carry rights and how we should all thank him for being courageous enough to do this for ALL of us.

Back when I was teaching carry permit classes, I got a call from up that way. A guy had gone hunting on state land, a couple of miles down the road from his home, and was picked up by police while walking back home, with his slung rifle over his shoulder.

In this case, the guy wasn't running around playing Rambo, threatening anyone, or causing anyone harm. He was simply walking down the road carrying a slung rifle.

While there may be information beyond what was provided in the story, what is clear is that he was entirely in the right, given the clear language of the statute.

[jdege]

I'll ask the question again, what is gained by challenging this city ordinance?

You're assuming that this incident occurred because someone intentionally decided to challenge the ordinance. I see no reason to assume that.

It may have simply been that he was on his way to somewhere where he intended to use the firearm in a perfectly legal manner, and because it was a nice day he decided to walk. Given that state statutes clearly makes this a legal activity, he'd have had no reason not to.

[yukonjasper]

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.

[mrp]

An interesting case.
On the one hand, he didn't violate state law. On the other, the long guns statute doesn't claim exclusivity, so it isn't clear that a city can't enforce a long gun ordinance.

Actually, it is clear.

Minn. Stat. 471.633 FIREARMS.

The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:

(a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and

(b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.

Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

Ah, this changes things. I wasn't aware of this blanket preemption. So I think he wins in court, and then we maybe lose next session.

[xd ED]

An interesting case.
On the one hand, he didn't violate state law. On the other, the long guns statute doesn't claim exclusivity, so it isn't clear that a city can't enforce a long gun ordinance.

Actually, it is clear.

Minn. Stat. 471.633 FIREARMS.

The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:

(a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and

(b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.

Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

Ah, this changes things. I wasn't aware of this blanket preemption. So I think he wins in court, and then we maybe lose next session.

Yep.


All one needed to see were the reports on TV.

The tone of disbelief and anxiety in the anchorette's voice as she read"...who was openly carrying a fully loaded AK-47..."

It's not terribly difficult to see where this will be headed.

[Holland&Holland]

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.