Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, December 10, 2010

I don't make these things up

In the effort to further my cause and educate the public I report and comment on gun incidents in the news. When a permit holder makes the news, I report it. It does not mean I am saying that laws should be revoked or everyone's permits to carry should be revoked. I am just saying that permit holders do get themselves into trouble when publicly carrying guns. Since the laws have passed in so many states, many in the recent decade, we have not had a chance to evaluate what it means to have more people with loaded guns in more public places. But as I have said in previous posts, the stories keep coming. I am only reporting on them. I am not making them up. For what it's worth, here is yet another one from my own state. It is clearly posted in court houses in Minnesota that guns are not allowed. And yet, Joel Rosenberg, state gun activist and permit to carry class instructor chose to walk into an office in the Minneapolis City Hall, where some courtrooms are located, with an openly carried gun.

I park in the St. Louis County Court House parking ramp in my city when I volunteer at the Family Justice Center. In order to get to the center, it is necessary to walk through the Court House itself. I walk through a hallway in the courthouse where there are several court rooms. Signs are clearly posted on either end of the hallway prohibiting guns. Rosenberg thought it would be O.K. for him to carry his gun where he shouldn't, even though signs were posted.  You can watch the confrontation on this video provided by City Pages.

Why do people do this? It looks like Rosenberg is looking for a challenge to Minnesota law. Why? Does he really think it's a good idea to carry a gun around in a court house or, in this case, a public building which houses court rooms, where emotions often run high? There is a reason why guns are not allowed in certain places. In Minnesota, guns can be openly carried around in public. But there are some places where they can't and shouldn't be. Common sense tells most people this. But then, some people have no common sense.

92 comments:

  1. I would like to share another link to this incident that my readers will find agrees with my assessment. http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/joel-rosenberg-minneapolis-city-hall-gun-arrest

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I sagely noted elsewhere, gunloons repeatedly call for tougher punishment of criminals and greater enforcement of existing laws.

    Except, of course, when a gunloon does the law-breaking--then they're just being persecuted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just another guntubby who lives by the silly notion that the ones with the guns make the rules. These people feel they are above the law, and it's just sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This case raises an interesting question. Rosenberg is a "certified" gun trainer--presumably by the NRA.

    I've always maintained NRA certification is useless because nobody ever flunks, it's trainers aren't periodically tested to see if they measure up, etc.

    If Rosenberg gets convicted--will the NRA pull its "certification" of Rosenberg? After all, in any endeavor where cerification or licensure is required, if you break the law or otherwise violate standards--you lose your license or certification.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that he should not have taken the gun into a location clearly marked as prohibited.

    BTW Jadegold and BantheNRA - if Sean is being censored on a previous post for name calling ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sean was censored because he is a bully and trying to intimidate me as well as harassing me about a personal issue regarding my sister's shooting as if he knows more about the situation of her murder than I do. In addition, he has provided a lot of information that is just plain not true to try to get me to believe I am nuts to believe what I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The law in this case isn't as clear-cut as you make it seem--Apparently there is a law that allows a license holder to carry in a court building with either permission or notification to the sheriff, and Rosenberg followed this procedure.

    Not every sign is accurate, or legally binding. Ohio law does not let local governments ban guns from parks, shelter buildings and rest areas, but many of these areas were posted several years later, and a few remain posted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark: It's a pretty standard gunloon tactic. They come to our blog--attack people, demand cites for everything (while refusing to provide any), move the goalposts, demand you believe fictitious anecdotes, and then call you a liar.

    When they eventually get banned, they then claim we aren't interested in "reasonable discourse."

    I'm no fan of banning but, as you know, the whole purpose of folks like Sean D. Sorrentino is to get banned. They love being the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If he notified the Sheriff, why did the deputy or whoever that was that took his gun, take his gun away? He knew it was Joel with whom he was meeting. I am not sure that Joel did notify the Sheriff. Perhaps the Sheriff denied him as he well should have. This is a case of stupidity. Joel set up a hidden camera to catch it all so he could challenge. This did not go the way he thought it would. I think he's in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sevesteen: Actually, the law is crystal clear in this case. Rosenberg thought he could get away with pulling a stunt and it didn't go well.

    Too bad there's not a America's Stupidest Home Videos.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Indeed, Sevesteen, Minnesota state statute 609.66, subdivision 1g, clearly allows for legal carry of firearms in courthouses given that one has both a permit to carry and has given the relevant authority prior notice. If Mr. Rosenberg did alert the sheriff's office that he would be carrying a firearm (which he claims that he did), then the prohibition against carrying in a courthouse or other such building wouldn't apply in this case.

    Besides, japete, don't forget that there are plenty of police officers who disagree with normal citizens carrying weapons both openly and concealed, and will go out of their way to harass people who do so. There are plenty of stories in the news about LEOs who confiscate firearms from people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, including one incident from my town that was settled last week.

    ReplyDelete
  12. terrible moniker, Inebriated. Check this out, though:

    " " As a cop who helped pass the Minnesota concealed carry law (I spoke multiple time in front of the senate subcommittee in order to get the bill to a vote) all I can say is what an idiot. Years of trying to convince some fellow cops that rational, reasonable citizens have every right to defend themselves with a firearm just went out the window. The fact that he set up some silly sting operation on Sgt Palmer, lied about Palmer "assaulting him" and then even implied that he could have pulled a different gun on Sgt. Palmer is appalling.

    One way or another he needs to go somewhere and be quiet.""- from the Fox news service article I linked to above.That does not seem to square with what you said. I don't think Rosenberg has done himself or CCW permit holders in Minnesota any favors here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe that he was going to the city police. It may be that neither the sheriff's office nor the police department are aware of the law allowing someone to notify the sheriff, it sounds like a fairly obscure law, likely from before concealed carry was an option.

    Law enforcement officers are not necessarily familiar with every obscure detail of law--even lawyers and judges have to look stuff up. I had a situation where a deputy was incorrect in his interpretation of Ohio law on license renewals-In this case the office was reasonable, and I was able to convince him I was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ah yesm those uninformed law enforcement folks are at it again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. One moral of this story is that some people do seek confrontation for various reasons. Joan, you may be right that he was intentionally setting up for a court challenge as you often have to get arrested or otherwise impacted by a law before you can challenge it.

    Another moral is that even if CCW holders are currently as a group more law abiding than the general population (most likely more a result of self-selection than anything else) that doesn't mean the group is immune to stupid tricks and moronic behavior. That's life and there is nothing for it.

    Though, since he was open carrying did he even have a permit? It would seem to be a stupid trick whether he did or not so it's more a point of order than anything.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why is it gunloons who claim to be all for getting tough on criminals and enforcing existing laws--always give anyone who commits a gun-related crime a pass?

    Correction: Strike 'anyone' and substitute white male.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do not like the shall issue gun permits since they take ALL discretion away from local law enforcement. Civilian CCW is a minefield anyway, but having someone like this running around being an idiot is too much. The Heller-McDonald case line was the worst thing which could have happened in American jurisprudence since it said to people like this: push the envelope. Nevermind that Heller-McDonald specifically said:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

    Which was reiterated by McDonald:

    It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

    I keep hoping that the five politically motivated Justices see the error of their ways: especially Alito.

    We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia-related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir.1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jadegold,
    Who is giving a pass? I believe more than one person on the Pro-rights side in this very thread has said something along the lines of "well, that was stupid". Did anyone say what this guy did was a great and wonderful thing or did I miss it?

    Laci,
    Shall Issue laws were needed both because May Issue is an invitation to government abuse and as a Right any licensing or regulation of that Right should be the least invasive possible. Yes, Heller and McDonald both said that the Right wasn't unlimited but what right is unlimited? Are there places and situations where maybe it isn't a good idea that every single person be armed? Yeah, there probably are. Yet, they should be kept to an absolute minimum and with clearly defined cause and effect justifications. And no, "because it makes people nervous" isn't a reason with this any more than it would be with prohibiting certain speech because it offends or makes people nervous.

    ReplyDelete
  19. japete --

    Respectfully, Sevesteen is correct. Law enforcement officers do not receive a comprehensive legal education during their training, and are thus rarely familiar with every last wrinkle of the criminal code and the relevant caselaw.

    As a result -- and especially as criminal codes have grown in scope and complexity -- the more arcane the subject matter, the more likely it is that an informed private citizen is going to know the relevant law better than a cop. This makes sense, if you think about it, given the incentives involved: the private citizen needs to know the law thoroughly enough to stay on the right side of it, lest his whole life be ruined by an arrest and prosecution; the cop, in contrast, only needs to know the law well enough to identify the violations he's most likely to encounter during the course of his job.

    A great example of this having nothing to do with guns is the brouhaha over videotaping police officers, which has recently been in the news. In several instances, police have given instructions or even made arrests based on completely incorrect understandings of state wiretapping laws.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brett- I do get tired of those on your side of the issue criticizing law enforcement at every turn. They may not be perfect. No one is. Perhaps that is why they have legal folks on board to help them through the legalese of all of these over complicated laws- not the least of which are gun laws. Minnesota gun laws are terribly complicated. I don't claim to be an expert but I do consult with lawyers and those who can help me understand things. Lawyers are not perfect either- you could probably agree with that. Physicians are not perfect; teachers are not perfect;; CPAs are not perfect. That's why we need lawyers. I also get pretty tired of the folks on your side all claiming to know the law much better than any one else. That might be true for some, I suppose. But the arrogance of it drives me nuts. Have a nice day. I hope it isn't too perfect. Mine has been imperfect so far no thanks to some people on this blog. But I am persevering and looking at the beautiful blue sky waiting for a major snow storm to come. Also I'm making Christmas cookies- that always makes me happy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Of course, Alito dissented in Rybar on Commerce Clause grounds, and the majority opinion relies on Cases -- which blatantly mischaracterizes Miller -- rather than relying on Miller itself. In fact, Miller absolutely did focus on the character of the weapon, as the majority pointed out in Heller.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Woah, it seems like nobody here has been following this story very carefully. Joel was totally complying with the law; he literally wrote the book on it.

    He was arrested because he hurt one of the officers' feelings when the officer in question didn't know the law as well as Joel did.

    There may be plenty of stories where CCW-holders commit crimes, but this isn't one of them. It's already making the rounds of the (*non-gun related*) blogs as an example of injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The posting of sings does not always follow the rules. For example the Mall of America at the entrances not at the anchor stores has been posted but carry no legal authority under the current law.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You guys always think it is an injustice when one of your own gets caught doing something wrong. I believe he was challenging on purpose, set up the meeting on purpose to challenge and had his hidden camera there to record the whole thing. Slimy and most likely illegal. Signs are posted in City Hall near the court rooms saying that guns are not allowed. Time will tell how this turns out. At the least, Rosenberg looks pretty slimy and sneaky to me and has received the ire of a lot of people, including a police officer who feels duped by the gun guys when they got him to testifly in favor of CCW. This kind of junk will change the minds of a lot of people. Just keep it up and you will find that there is not a lot of support for these kind of shenanigans.

    ReplyDelete
  25. japete --

    I agree; nobody's perfect. However, given the authority that police are entrusted with, I believe the taxpaying public is entitled to hold them to a high standard and to be critical of them when they screw up.

    As for people on "my side" claiming to know the law much better than anyone else: again, that's a result of the incentives. We have to know the law well, because due to the complexity of gun laws it's astonishingly easy to commit a felony through ignorance. This is why we get frustrated when your fellow travellers make out as if guns are more or less unregulated: we know that's not the case. We deal with the legal landmines associated with gun ownership on a daily basis, because if we fail to do so we end up in prison (not to mention the objects of derision by the likes of Jadegold and MikeB). We have a direct, personal stake in knowing these laws that most people just don't.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If someone is caught carrying a gun in a place where the signs are posted, law enforcement can be called and the person can be charged. The signs are there for a reason. Some places don't want people with loaded guns on their premises. After the Rosenberg stunt, they may be even more resolved to make sure people don't violate the privilege of carrying a loaded gun around in public.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I hope you'll post an update when this case ends. You're just wrong about this case. Maybe the radical pro-gun crowd cries wolf, but they're right here.

    Note he wasn't arrested right when they saw his gun. He was arrested later when he posted about how they were wrong about the law.

    ReplyDelete
  28. " guns are more or less unregulated: we know that's not the case" That would actually be close to being true. It is often the people who are more or less unregulated. Some people and some guns need to be regulated.Note- I said SOME. Don't go off and accuse me of now wanting to regulate all of you. You already are if you follow the laws and purchase your guns from ffls. If you guys actually think there should be no regulations on guns or the people who carry them, you are going to find that a difficult position. Justices Scalia and Alito actually agree on this one with my fellow travelers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. He was arrested for illegally having his gun in City Hall and ignoring the law as well as obstruction of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  30. He was not arrested for Obstruction of Justice. That's factually false. The two things he's charged with are carrying in a place where the law actually allows him to, and violating a court order banning carry in a different building.

    The warrant, law, and court order are all public documents, and you can go check this.

    I know I'm just some anonymous guy, but I'm really really not BSing you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, you are right. Here is the wording used: " Rosenberg was arrested this morning for felony possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse and for willful disobedience of a court mandate. He will be arraigned tomorrow." I notice that the Mn. gun guys are going "ballistic" about this one. I think he is in trouble; some of the gun guys are even saying they can't support him on this one. If he hadn't been so arrogant and stupid as to set up the camera and then proceed to taunt the officer and write stuff about the incident after it happened, he might have gotten away with this.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree he's not a good face for the Mn. gun movement. But it really appears he was arrested for the taunting and the writing, not the gun, and no matter my views on weapons, I'm just not OK with that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'll start off by saying that the guy is a jackass. Even if he's in the right, this wasn't how to go about asserting his rights.

    But the question of whether he's on the wrong side of the law isn't quite so cut and dry. The Minnesota statue requires notification. It does not require permission, if you have a license to carry. If he failed to notify the sheriff, he's in violation. If he did, then probably met the requirement. Later in the statute it requires "express consent" for people who do not have a license, which shows the legislature understood how to make the distinction.

    But the warrant on this guy said the sheriff's office has a procedure for notification, and that their office was never notified. I suspect that this guy is toast unless he can show a certified mail receipt showing he did provide notification.

    This isn't really an area I'd want to challenge. The legislature was less than abundantly clear in this prohibition, and there are no constitutional issues with banning carry in a courthouse complex.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This is the part of the law that seems to me to be in question here. A judge deeming that you can not carry in a building not listed in the previous parts of the law would not be legal in my opinion.

    Minn. Stat. 624.714

    Subd. 23.Exclusivity.

    This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I say this guy is just not the poster boy you want to have.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Just to make it clear - Joel did provide notification to the Sheriff, and has evidence to prove that he provided notification to the Sheriff, so if on the odd chance that the entirety of the Minneapolis City Hall is considered a courthouse, he's in the clear.

    And if Minneapolis City Hall is not considered a courthouse, he's also in the clear, as would be any permit holder.

    FWIW - Joel has provided training classes for various police departments - including MPLS, on a number of occasions, and has carried openly in various police departments and city offices on those occasions, without incident.

    This is about one poorly-informed police officer over-reacting, and the PTB at MPD covering their butts, and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  37. We'll see how this turns out jedge. Time will tell if Rosenberg comes out "smelling like rose". I would say it isn't looking too good for him. I doubt that the police like to be filmed by someone who is trying to set them up. He made a lot of stupid mistakes and got too arrogant.

    ReplyDelete
  38. jedge:

    If he has written documentation that he complied with the statute, then that changes my assessment. On the surface this looked like someone haphazardly, and without a good plan, challenging the legality of a policy that is probably unlawful under Minnesota law.

    ReplyDelete
  39. How dumb of the County Attorney to charge Rosenberg with a felony if Rosenberg followed the law.

    If you really think the County prosecutor made that mistake, you're dreaming (again).

    .45 Colt

    ReplyDelete
  40. He's not a "poster boy" for anyone except his own agenda of selling books and training classes - but he didn't do anything illegal.

    If his carrying of a firearm had been illegal in the first place - why did Sgt Palmer give it BACK to him in the video? Why was Rosenberg not ARRESTED on the spot?

    There are publicity seeking people across the Internet, especially in MN as of late...

    ReplyDelete
  41. @.45 Colt: This guy doesn't do anything without a plan - never has. Just watch.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Pat,

    Who is seeking publicity? Do you think he planned to spend time on jail? Is he a martyr for your cause? Poor guy. The bail is pretty high. There must be a reason for that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. To be clear, its not a "cause", and its not only mine - its a right for everyone.

    If you watch his various antics, you can see that he clearly intended to be arrested by his actions. There exists a judge's order that is illegal under State Law. Thats what he protesting. Since judges very rarely enjoy countermanding another judge's order - they set high bail to try and get him to "plead out". He will likely do no such thing, and see this case dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You guys are missing the point, and the big picture.

    The "ban" in courtrooms stems from a 2008 ruling by Judge Judy Swensen banning all firearms regardless of a permit to carry.

    The problem is that the ban is illegal.

    MN Statutes 624.714:
    "Subd. 23. Exclusivity. This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry."

    As the district court is undeniably part og the government, any efforts they exert to "change, modify, or supplement... or limit the exercise of a permit to carry" is illegal...

    This is not my theory or opinions... It is state law. And the ban has gone unchallenged... until now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This looks to be the two charges against him

    http://www4.co.hennepin.mn.us/webbooking/chargedetail.asp?v_booknum=2010033627

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Do you think he planned to spend time on jail? "
    Yes
    "Is he a martyr for your cause?"
    To be determined... It's Far from over.

    "The bail is pretty high. There must be a reason for that."
    Yes, it's an attempt to coerce a plea. Joel has no criminal record, no prior arrests, and poses no flight risk.

    There is also no reason he should have been arrested A MONTH LATER.
    According the the "Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure Warrants":

    "A summons rather than a warrant must issue unless a substantial likelihood exists that the defendant will fail to respond to a summons, the defendant’s location is not reasonably discoverable, or the defendant’s arrest is necessary to prevent imminent harm to anyone."

    Joel should have been served a summons, not arrested. There is no reason for him to be in jail, other than a sad attempt to punish him prior to trial.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The crux of this isn't the statutory violation. It's the violation of the judicial order.

    Neither the City of Minneapolis nor Hennepin County have any statutory authority to ban guns in their public buildings. This was established law long before the carry permit law was changed to shall-issue in 2003.

    When the shall-issue bill passed, judges around the state issues orders forbidding carry in their courthouses - with very broad interpretations of exactly what was a courthouse. In the metro area, the regional county courts are usually in a shared complex with the regional county libraries. The judges' orders forbid carry in the libraries, even though the libraries shared nothing more with the courthouse than a common wall. There is no public access from one to the other.

    The judicial order in question in this case forbids carry in the Hennepin County Government Center - and in extension, in Minneapolis City Hall, across the street. The two are joined only by a 200-yard long underground tunnel.

    There's little argument that the courts can forbid carry in their own courtrooms, despite the statute. It's a separation of powers thing.

    The controversy, in this case, is how far the courts orders can extend.

    For those who don't know, Hennepin County Government Center constitutes two towers - the court tower and the administrative tower.

    Can a judge of the 4th Circuit ban guns in his court rooms? In the entire court tower? In the administrative tower as well?

    And can a judge of the 4th Circuit ban guns in Minneapolis City Hall, across the street, and across governmental jurisdictions?

    The answer to the first question is certainly yes. To the second, almost certainly yes. To the third, probably, but only because the construction of the building makes enforcing a ban in only one tower nearly impossible.

    To the fourth? We shall see.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There are two possibilities here.

    (1) Rosenberg is intentionally getting arrested so as to have standing to challenge what may be an illegal court order.

    Given the hidden camera and the advisement at the start of the video to "be discreet," along with his carefulness to follow the police officer's instructions to prevent escalation of the situation (and additionall charges), this seems plausible.

    In this case, I would expect him to have established proof that he complied with the statute to provide notification. As Sebastian pointed out, a certified letter would be good. Alternatively, maybe he has several reputable witnesses that observed the notification or something of that nature.

    (2) Rosenberg is an idiot that is seeking the media limelight.

    This is certainly possible as well. Parts of his livelihood (his writing) may benefit from publicity. However, given that he's a firearms instructor, I rather doubt that he wants to become a prohibited person and lose his income.

    However, his post-arrest actions lend some credence to this theory. I think it would be smarter for him to shut up and consult with his lawyer. However, he may need some PR to raise funds for a legal defense fund or something, or he may just have trouble keeping his mouth shut.

    Was he a public safety threat?

    Not in the judgment of the LEO. The officer disarmed him of his obviously open carried weapon but did not conduct a Terry frisk to check for additional weapons, or even appear to detain him. An arrest didn't seem to be considered either. The officer gave the gun back then went on to conduct regular business!

    Is it a good idea?

    I think reasonable people can differ here, and will. Someone often has to be a test case to determine the legality of a policy. We just had one of these in Alaska over the UAA Board of Regent's policy. You can't sue unless you have standing.

    The media that this generates, primarily due to the post-event comments, however, may not be good. I'm somewhat of an agnostic on this sort of stunt. On one hand, it will never get good media coverage. On the other hand, it is essential to generating court cases which chip away at inappropriate policies that contradict state laws. While I'd prefer that he just STFU rather than running his mouth at this point, it is kind of hard to throw spears as he's apparently got the cojones to risk his livelihood and liberty to be a test case.

    Knowing the Law

    Gun owners have a strong incentive to know the law. If we break it, then we will lose our liberty (i.e. be jailed) and possibly our livelihood (a felony conviction kind of hurts your career). Breaking a gun law, even without actually hurting anyone or intending to hurt anyone, can be a life changing event. Luckily, that is easier for me as Alaska has relatively few, easy to understand statutes.

    Some gunowners are not correct in their knowledge of law, especially the finer parts that they don't deal with regularly. Others are naive and think that because the plain language of a law says something, that is how it should and will be interpreted by law enforcement and the courts. If you're not planning on being a test case, the latter can be a rude wakeup!

    I'm always happy to learn more or correct a misunderstanding. Because many of the laws are highly technical and ambiguous it is hard to know everything after all. But some are very straightforward and easy to know. The basic structure of the FFL system, my state's laws for carrying, my state's laws for use of force -- those are all pretty easy to read and understand.

    ReplyDelete
  49. That sums it up well, Chris. Minnesota gun laws are incredibly poorly written. I am not sure how that happens other than "sausage making" as legislators add language. They are complex enough that some in L.E. don't understand them, some gun rights folks don't and people like me have to keep reading them to get the real gist of what is meant. These laws need to be simple and easily understood by all. There is too much at stake on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Not poorly written - overly complex. They were designed to be simple, but with too many objections from opponents, they had many provisions added (and exclusions from those provisions) that made them too complex.
    Criminals are still a prohibited class from owning firearms regardless of the slant you're attempting to put on this incident

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gun laws are not exclusive in their complexity... There are plenty of confusion to be had with the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of laws police officers have to enforce.

    I have many friends who are LEOs, and an overwhelming majority knew little to nothing about the carry law.
    In a recent class of 30 metro police officers, only 1 officer had ANY interactions with something possessing a permit to carry, and they were the complainant, not the suspect.

    Given the incredibly low probability of someone possessing a permit to carry committing a crime, it is no wonder that local police officers have a limited knowledge of the law...
    There are plenty of other things to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Perhaps this webpage will clear up some of the confusion and misinformation people are suffering from:

    http://ellegon.com/news/

    ReplyDelete
  53. Joel, the hero poster boy of the poor oppressed gun owners of MN and everywhere, those brave men (usually men) who fight against injustice and scrape tooth and nail to increase their natural human rights. Heroes, I say. Speak the name Rosenberg with respect.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I don't know that it clears things up since it is written from a very slanted point of view. Martin Luther King was a Civil Rights Activist. I don't think I would put Joel Rosenberg in the same category.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "I don't think I would put Joel Rosenberg in the same category."

    Neither would I. Civil rights are those dealing with voting, due process, equal access to government services, etc.

    The right to keep and bear arms isn't a civil right, it's a fundamental right, along with life, liberty, and property. It's far more important than mere civil rights.

    ReplyDelete
  56. http://www.popehat.com/2010/12/09/the-empire-strikes-back/

    The reason Joel was at the courthouse was to pick up documents as to how/why his wife was arrested and never charged with a crime.

    Joel wasn't arrested until a month after the incident, after he posted his video of the encounter. Which judges have repeatedly ruled "Police officers acting in their official capacity have no expectation of privacy."

    I will now go buy Joel's books.

    Joan, when the charges against Joel are dropped, will you follow up with a story about Police abuse of Power?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I will follow up on the stories about Joel Rosenberg as they happen. I did not know that Joel's wife was arrested. What for? This couple is sounding a bit more unsavory to me. Is it just a coincidence that both have been arrested and are claiming false arrest? Hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Just another guntubby who lives by the silly notion that the ones with the guns make the rules. These people feel they are above the law, and it's just sickening. "

    Your ad hominem attack is duly noted BantheNRA.

    However, it would seem that the evidence is starting to indicate that the one arrested was the one operating within the confines of the law, and that the 'only ones' that had him arrested were not.

    Should such be proven out in court, may we then assume you will voice similar disparagements against the government agents involved?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Felicia (Joel's Wife) was arrested for domestic assault stemming from an argument with her daughter (based on a false eyewitness report). She was ripped from her family for 30 days, and the charges were found baseless and dismissed:
    http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1613874014

    There was no reason for Joel to be arrested a month after the fact. It should have been a court summons.

    ReplyDelete
  60. For those who think that Joel videotaping “proves” he was out to make a scene, read about his wife's unwarranted arrest, holding, and 30 day expulsion from her home at the hands of the MPD on charges that were found baseless in court.

    Then and ask yourself if you would trust them? I don’t.

    On top of that Palmer had already tried to extort money for the public documents. I would have wanted that on tape if he tried it again.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Joan,

    I'm glad that we finally agree on another point... Namely, that laws should be simple to understand by men and women of reasonable intelligence. I personally also think that actus rea (i.e., doing something that actually harms someone) and mens rea (i.e., intending to actually harm someone) should be required elements of most crimes, too. Without either element I think civil law is better than criminal charges, personally.

    If your organization focused on taking the existing laws on the books and modifying them so as to reduce their overall number and improve their clarity then you might find that some of us are supportive of that effort. It would also help focus law enforcement efforts on things that actually matter and help. I've rarely heard anyone say, "Hey, this law is ineffective. Let's get rid of it!" though (on almost any issue).

    Unfortunately, there are some that present laws that are either not very well thought out, or seem actually intended to be vague and unclear. For example, Sen Lautenberg's "Firearm's Free Airport Act" (introduced this spring) would have basically criminalized all travel through our remote Alaskan bush airports with firearms (without requiring either actus rea or mens rea...). Given that lots of people fly regularly in private planes through these small bush plane airports (which have no security; it isn't needed) with firearms in their survival kits or for hunting, that's kind of a problem. I wonder if he is just clueless, or if he intentionally intends to throw a broad net with a vague law?

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
  62. I would be willing to bet that Senator Lautenberg has no intentions such as those you have suggested. I also don't think he is clueless, as you have said. It is interesting to me that when there's a law you question or don't like, you accuse anyone who wants the law to be clueless or having some motive different from that professed in the bill. Homeland Security has something to do with no guns on planes. Given that security is important in every state and for public safety, I would say it would be difficult to make exceptions for one state. How do we know the difference between a terrorist who intends harm and someone who is innocently carrying guns at airports? We have had several recent examples of "homegrown terrorist" plotting evil acts in American cities. And none of this means I think gun laws shouldn't be written simply so all can understand. Perhaps you should work on this or write a letter to Senator Lautenberg's office to explain your problem with his bill.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am not Sen Lautenberg's constituent. He doesn't care two whits about my opinion. That's just politics. Luckily both of Alaska's senators understand that his proposed law, as written, would have significant negative effects on local economies up here. In a bush village with a dirt strip that has 100 residents, it is not possible to afford around-the-clock airport security at your dirt landing strip. Likewise, the terror threat doesn't consist of a guy with a .22 rifle in his survival kit flying a piper cub on the Nome-Shishmaref run.

    That's just one example though. It is easy to look at gun laws and find plenty of confusing ones, as well as plenty of exceedingly broad laws that criminalize day-to-day activity. It is even more perilous for someone trying to follow the law because many of the crimes don't involve any actual harm to someone else, or even an intent to harm anyone else.

    One example I like to think of is the Gun Free School Zones act. This federal law sets up a magic 1000' bubble around schools. You basically can't bring a firearm into this bubble except under very strict conditions. We have one highway leading north out of Anchorage, the Glenn; our local range lies north up the road (Alaska is not known for having alternate routes...). Chugiak High School is within 1000' of the highway. The only way you can drive on the highway with a firearm and comply with the federal law is if the firearm is cased, unloaded, and locked in your trunk.

    So if someone is going hunting up north of the city (common), and they put a cased -- but not locked -- shotgun in their trunk, they're a potential criminal. If you're going to one of the popular hiking trails up north of the city and have your bear revolver on your hip (bear pepper spray on one side, revolver on the other... a fairly common sight up here in the summer) then you're a potential criminal. If you're a woman going to the Birchwood range for a concealed carry class with a handgun then you're a potential criminal. None of these people has actually harmed anyone else, nor do they intend to, but they are violating a federal law. AK State Troopers could set up a "sobriety checkpoint" on the highway and invite a federal agent to hang out with them and bust folks if they wanted.

    More examples of such vague, broad laws are easy to find. It is even worse when Congress abdicates its obligation to write laws and just dumps complex, difficult problems onto the ATF to come up with some sort of regulation. That's not fair to the ATF -- which is given a nearly impossible task where it will not be able to please anyone much of the time -- or to the citizens who have to try to decipher arcane and ever-changing regulations.

    (1) Easily understood by a man or woman of average intelligence. (2) Intent to cause harm (mens rea). (3) Actually causes harm (actus rea), except for conspiracies where intent may be enough. These are the cornerstones of common law for a reason. Criminalizing ordinary day-to-day behavior is a departure from the common law tradition we've inherited and it concerns me.

    Luckily, state law -- at least in Alaska -- is pretty clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. Other jurisdictions are not so easy to navigate however.

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
  64. "We have had several recent examples of "homegrown terrorist" plotting evil acts in American cities."

    How many with guns?

    ReplyDelete
  65. By the way, I'd be much more willing to accept the GFSZA, Lautenberg's "no guns in airports" proposal, etc. if there was a clause like this:

    "In order to find an individual guilty under this statute, the individual must have intent to commit any felony or must commit a felony involving the firearm."

    Require the prosecutor to show that there was some sort of "guilty mind." Nobody, including the "gun loons," is trying to shield Joe Jihad who is planning on embracing martyrdom at the TSA checkpoint or someone who is planning on shooting up a school. However, I think that it is absurd to consider the average citizen who is driving on a highway that happens to be within a football field's length of a school's perimeter fence a criminal for going about their daily business. That's a waste of limited police resource and a waste of time for the justice system.

    I still think it is a stretch of the commerce clause, but at least it doesn't violate as many basic precepts of English common law as current formulations do. Current formulations of law which are vague, broad, and lack any sort of criminal act/criminal intent.

    Gun laws aren't the only ones that are this bad. Extremist organizations like the notorious ABA (sarcasm) have identified the problem as well. From a decades-old ABA report: "So large is the present body of federal criminal law that there is no conveniently accessible, complete list of federal crimes." More info in a Heritage (yes, conservative) Foundation report here (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/the-criminal-intent-report-congress-is-eroding-the-mens-rea-requirement-in-federal-criminal-law), or in a liberal defense lawyer's book here (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556).

    I can only conclude that for whatever reason, federal legislators on both the political right and the left on a variety of issues are unable or unwilling to provide such precision and clarity along with traditional components like "criminal intent" in statutes.

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
  66. Chris,

    Obviously you write from the perspective of Alaska which has a different environment from the lower 48 from what you write, anyway. If that many people have their guns with them at all times, that's another situation all together with which I have trouble identifying. I don't know what to say about the fact that people would be criminalized by driving through a school zone with a gun in their car. I wonder if you can see that one problem with that situation is that there is a potential for someone who is driving through a school zone with a gun could be a potential problem. What we know about how laws are made is that when we have incidents such as the mass school shootings in our country, we try to prevent them when we can. Unfortunately for some gun owners, there are gun owners or people with guns who have done terrible things with their guns. That makes it harder to defend letting everyone have their guns wherever they want them. It's sort of like drunk drivers. Now we have laws about driving while drunk. We have seat belt laws because we found that not wearing a seatbelt causes injuries and deaths that we all pay for with our health care costs and the grief caused to families who lose a loved one in a car accident. Car manufacturers are now required to make cars with seat belts, air bags and other safety features because it is known that this will reduce and prevent injury. Laws that keep guns away from school zones are not arbitrary. They were passed for a reason that makes good sense. It does not always prevent a shooter from going into a school, that we know. But it may allow law enforcement to arrest someone who they suspect of doing harm before the harm begins. Laws don't solve all of the problems. But they are usually there for a reason that was decided upon by the majority of those who voted for them. Your particular problem is Alaska is not the usual. I am betting that in Philadelphia, or Eugene, Or or Minneapolis, Mn, there just aren't a lot of people driving around near a school zone with guns in their cars. If they are, they would be suspect. Gun owners will need to put up with some minor inconveniences to themselves for the common good. We all now put up with seat belts for the common good and for our own safety and the safety of our children. They once were thought to be inconvenient. Now, at least for me and my chilldren and grandchildren, they are just a way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The latest is the man in CA who had a house full of guns, home made grenades and explosives to make bombs. Law enforcement had to burn his house down because it was so dangerous they couldn't allow people to be inside to gather all the dangerous stuff inside. There are others who have been in the media recently as well who have been found with arsenals of guns and other dangerous materials.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "I wonder if you can see that one problem with that situation is that there is a potential for someone who is driving through a school zone with a gun could be a potential problem."

    Not wanting to sound hyperbolic, but whats to keep said person from simply flooring the gas pedal, blasting through the fence, and running 'donuts' in the playground at recess? Would you blame the car if he did?

    "What we know about how laws are made is that when we have incidents such as the mass school shootings in our country, we try to prevent them when we can...Laws that keep guns away from school zones are not arbitrary...It does not always prevent a shooter from going into a school, that we know."

    Such laws, being merely words on paper, cannot be PREVENTATIVE in any way, shape, or form if someone decides to perform that action. Such laws can only be PUNITIVE in nature. Ergo such laws ARE arbitrary, as the only people affected by them are those not inclined to violent actions to begin with and unintentionally run afoul of them. A GFSZ violation really amounts to a 'tack on' charge that's handy for bartering away in plea bargains...a tactic most commonly used against truly innocent people.

    "I am betting that in Philadelphia, or Eugene, Or or Minneapolis, Mn, there just aren't a lot of people driving around near a school zone with guns in their cars... Gun owners will need to put up with some minor inconveniences to themselves for the common good."
    I'm betting you would be suprised. The biggest problem with a 1000' GFSZ (BTW that's THREE football fields end to end...not just one, Chris) is that there are usually so many places that qualify as a 'school' that it creates an overlapping blanket over most population areas making it not merely inconvenient, but impossible to 'lawfully' travel through them.

    ReplyDelete
  69. One person's perspective vs. another's.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Thank heaven in MN we have more intelligent laws regarding school zones!

    ...and about the house in Escondido, California. Having been present for the burn on Thursday (part of my day job) and the resulting cleanup, I don't believe the authorities mentioned anything about firearms in the house. Care to cite your source for the firearms comment you made above - or was that hyperbole on your part?

    ReplyDelete
  71. I can't come up with right now. It has been reported in several news sources. I will look it us. I thought you were a Minnesota guy.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I am a Minnesota guy - in my day job I'm a hazmat guy as well...a little rough flying back into MSP yesterday...

    Odd that no other news sources would pick up on those being present, nor any of the State staff (fire, police, FBI, DTSC, ). The firearms and ammo weren't a part of the equation - although, since it was CA, he probably shouldn't have had those either, right? I mean there's a couple of laws against that in CA...

    ReplyDelete
  73. I wonder if you can see that one problem with that situation is that there is a potential for someone who is driving through a school zone with a gun could be a potential problem.

    The gun free school zone was passed before concealed carry was common. It is patently ridiculous. I've lived in this town all my life. Even checking Google maps, and drawing 1000 foot radius circles, I can't figure out how to get from one end of town to another without crossing a school zone--there is pretty much a solid wall of school zones dividing the east side from the west, a school covering the main route to the interstate, and schools covering most of the routes in and out of town. All along I-75, there are schools that border the interstate--are people with licenses supposed to detour around those schools?

    The net result is to make anyone who carries on an out of state license a felon, no matter how hard they try to follow the law. This is a federal law rather than state.

    Support for this sort of craziness makes it very difficult to believe that you want any meaningful gun rights.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Here is a case of someone who likely didn't care about the law as you all are telling me. He could have purchased guns in other states that don't have the same stricter gun laws as CA. I have read this in several other articles about this guy. Yes, you must have flown in before they closed the airport.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well I do support it in spite of these problems. I understand what you guys are talking about and I can't believe you go to the trouble of finding out what a 1000 foot radius is around a school just so you can drive through it with your gun. Isn't a lot more convenient to leave your gun at home or not carry it that day? I'm sure you would be O.K. I don't find this to be craziness but it sounds like you guys have gone crazy trying to get around it. How many cases are there of people getting arrested in a school zone when they inadvertently drive through with a gun? If you are obeying traffic laws, it seems unlikely you would get caught. If you are law abiding, you shouldn't have to worry. But if there is some suspect behavior exhibited by someone who happens to have a gun, then perhaps that is a person we don't want to have near a school with a gun. I'm all about protecting children. Do you have children, Sevesteen?

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Isn't a lot more convenient to leave your gun at home or not carry it that day?"

    It is, unless your insane ex-boyfriend decides to show up, on that day.

    Carrying a gun is never "convenient", but it is often the only responsible choice.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I have 2 children - I obey MN Laws when I pick them up at school by locking my firearm in my lockbox inside the car when on school property. No 1000' rule in MN, thank heavens.

    Trouble is, I usually like to walk them to/from school (exercise and all that) - I'm not allowed to do that...seems silly, arbitrary and capricious. Their school isn't locked-down, anyone who wished to assault it illegally could at any point...why prohibit those carrying legally and concealed...

    ReplyDelete
  78. The 1000 foot law is rarely if ever enforced against concealed carry holders. It doesn't apply to residents with an in-state license. I suspect that the law would not withstand a constitutional challenge, either under second amendment grounds, or privileges and immunities. Unenforced or selectively enforced laws are a recipe for corruption and abuse.

    If an out of state license holder is stopped for a taillight out in a school zone while carrying, with no suspicion of him doing anything to harm others--should he go to jail and be convicted of a felony?

    I have 2 grown children, and two grandchildren. I'm very much about protecting children and other innocents--actually protecting them myself if necessary, rather than merely hoping the government will do an adequate job.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Pat,

    Unless your state meets the requirement under the Federal GFSZA of 1995 then you still need to worry about the federal law.

    Joan,

    I don't think that a law which prevents off-duty police officers from legally carrying a sidearm within 1000' of a school prevents school mass shootings. That isn't common sense to me. I generally trust most citizens and police officers to act like sane human beings with some degree of impulse control.

    Honestly, I'd think that if someone is planning on committing mass murder, an entry-level felony punishable by 5 years in jail isn't going to deter them. The mass murder will get them life in prison.

    I can't believe you go to the trouble of finding out what a 1000 foot radius is around a school just so you can drive through it with your gun. Isn't a lot more convenient to leave your gun at home or not carry it that day.

    You're upset that we are trying to comply with a law, and have done some research to try to do so? Try driving across any decent size town without getting within 1000' of a school; it is nearly impossible. We are frustrated because your side favors laws which are impossible to comply with if you are a law abiding citizen peacefully going about your own business.

    You don't seem to have any problem with laws that criminalize people for doing harmless, daily actions and argue that so long as you don't do anything to get caught (i.e. attract police attention) then it is moot anyways. You essentially argue that we can trust the police to apply appropriate discretion in who they arrest (although we can't trust them off duty with a firearm within 1000' of a school! Hrm...).

    What if the AK State Troopers set up a sobriety checkpoint on the highway? You have to declare to an officer if you are carrying in Alaska upon contact. If they had a federal agent with them then they could bust you right then and there, no "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" required. Your approach of "make everything illegal; rely on police discretion to sort it out" seems questionable to me.

    How would you feel about a law like this?


    "Any male who approaches within 50 feet of any woman, child, or handicapped individual is guilty of a felony of domestic violence." After all, based on any reasonable examination of crime statistics we can agree that the majority of abusers are men. If you are a man, and you aren't beating women, then you have nothing to fear because the police won't pick you up. The police can apply their discretion in deciding who to arrest, and if they err in judgment, then we can trust prosecutors to drop charges against people who didn't deserve it. This sort of law would give police the sort of tools that they need to get deadbeat abusers off the street and behind jail bars. I am trying to prevent domestic violence. One assault is too many; if you oppose this law, then you're letting probable abusers get close to their victims.


    I think that would be a Soviet-style perversion of justice, myself, but hey, to each their own.

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
  80. Chris- you are a master at setting up situations like this. You know the answer to this one but that does not take away from wanting to make laws to protect people. I don't condone police behavior that over reaches or takes away rights. But I actually do trust law enforcement for the most part. Just as in any profession, there are some bad apples and folks who love power and abuse it.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Joan - you could turn that last statement around to firearm owners as well...

    "...there are some bad apples and folks who love power and abuse it."

    I don't condone violence or those who perpetrate it either -- so there we go.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I trust most law enforcement-I think 90% of cops are decent people.

    Cops should be aggressive, and should use most or all of the tools at their disposal for solving crime and catching criminals. However, their tools should be deliberately limited to protect the rights of civilians. Police should not be able to beat confessions out of people, they should not be allowed to keep people from consulting a lawyer.

    The problem isn't the decent majority of cops. If we cannot avoid committing a felony, our rights are limited to whatever the most corrupt cop will allow us to have--we must do as he says, or get charged.

    You avoided Chris's hypothetical question. How about my real one--should a nonviolent and properly licensed person who is stopped for a trivial issue while driving past a school zone go to prison?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Sevesteen,

    Would need more specific information about Chris's question I don't want to get involved in a "gotcha" question.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I'm not talking about Chris's hypothetical question. You say you support the rules banning licensed concealed carry within 1000 feet of a school.

    Does that mean I should go to prison if I get stopped while carrying for a traffic ticket near a school in a state where my license is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I just can't answer that question. What is the actual penalty? You would go immediately to prison without a hearing or a chance in court? Would you be fined? What is it? If you looked suspicious and were loitering around a school zone and were picked up with a gun in your car, then I don't know how that would shake out? Too many ifs here.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I just can't answer that question. What is the actual penalty?

    "Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law."

    You would go immediately to prison without a hearing or a chance in court?

    No--treated like any other felony, arrested, bond set, concealed carry license suspended immediately. However, there would be very little question of the facts, and police generally don't have discretion if a felony is involved.

    Would you be fined? What is it?

    5 years in prison, $5000 fine, felony record and loss of gun rights for life.

    If you looked suspicious and were loitering around a school zone and were picked up with a gun in your car, then I don't know how that would shake out? Too many ifs here.

    Not loitering (although that shouldn't matter)--I used 'taillight out' as the reason the police were allowed to stop you in the first place, but basically the most minor thing that gives the police reason to pull you over.

    If you need a specific scenario, let's say a license plate marker light out while driving through Dayton, Ohio on I-75. Bunch of schools within 1000 feet of the interstate, and I know from sad experience that the police there will give a $100+ ticket for a burned out bulb. Ohio requires that license holders who are carrying notify police if they are stopped.

    I don't have a gotcha to this question--except that if you think that this law is just, we have vastly different ideas of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  87. There's no general exception for off-duty cops in the law either, other than the professional courtesy that might be offered in such a situation, or perhaps an out via state law and the licensing CCW provision.

    So an off duty cop driving home on I-75 with a burned out tail light, carrying a sidearm, could also technically be charged and convicted.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "I do not like the shall issue gun permits since they take ALL discretion away from local law enforcement."

    That is far from the truth.

    Most shall-issue laws allow the local law enforcement considerable discretion. Minnesota's, for example, provides that:

    "Minn. Stat. 624.714 Subd. 6 (a):

    Subd. 6.Granting and denial of permits.

    (a) The sheriff must, within 30 days after the date of receipt of the application packet described in subdivision 3:

    (1) issue the permit to carry;

    (2) deny the application for a permit to carry solely on the grounds that the applicant failed to qualify under the criteria described in subdivision 2, paragraph (b); or

    (3) deny the application on the grounds that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit."

    You'll note that Subd. 6(a)(3) allows the sheriff the discretion to deny. What makes it "shall" issue is in Subd. 12 - where it states that the Sheriff must present actual evidence to support his proposition that the applicant would be a danger to self or the public, and that the Sheriff pays the legal costs of a successful appeal.

    To argue that the sheriffs need more "discretion" than they have in current law is to argue that they need the authority to deny without evidence - which is a violation of basic due process provisions.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Isn't a lot more convenient to leave your gun at home or not carry it that day?"

    Depends, is that the day a convicted rapist will follow through on his threat to kill me? He swore he would find me when he got out of prison.

    ReplyDelete
  90. As is noted in the posted excerpt from the statutes, carry in courthouses by permit holders is protected by the law. Posting signs banning lawful carry does not change the laws of the state. The legislature can change laws, but the City cannot, nor can Hennepin county.

    ReplyDelete
  91. from the Minnnesota BCA- " 24. Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?

    School property
    A childcare center while children are present
    Public colleges and universities – may have policy restricting the carrying of weapons on their premises by employees and students while on campus
    Private establishments that have posted a sign banning guns on their premises
    Private establishments who have personally informed the permit holder that guns are prohibited and demands compliance
    Places of employment, public or private, if employer restricts the carry or possession of firearms by is employees
    State correctional facilities or state hospitals and grounds (MN Statute 243.55)
    Any jail, lockup or correctional facility (MN Statute 641.165)
    Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
    Offices and courtrooms of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    Any state building unless the commissioner of public safety is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
    In a field while hunting big game by archery, except when hunting bear (MN Statute 97B.211)
    In federal court facilities or other federal facilities (Title 18 U.S.C.§ 930)"

    ReplyDelete
  92. Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (MN Statute 609.66)

    Notice the last part

    ReplyDelete