Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public
Author |
Message |
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:53 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm Posts: 471 Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
|
M.S. 624.7181 Subd. 1 (c), which defines areas where a carry permit is required to carry lawfull, reads in material part:
Quote: "Public place" means property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public in sufficient numbers to give clear notice of the property's current dedication to public use but does not include: a person's dwelling house or premises, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person [...]
The interesting thing about this definition is that there are a number of areas that aren't covered, apparently, based on the "open to or made available for use by the public" test:
- The common areas of an apartment building where access is limited to residents. Possibly, the grounds and any parking lots adjoining, especially if as is often the case there are signs posted prohibiting use by anyone other than tenants.
- Parking ramps and garages available only to those holding a monthly contract.
- Most places of business that do not engage in retail sales or otherwise invite the public. Particularly, perhaps, the many businesses that are physically accessible only to employees and invitees.
Any case law on this?
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:10 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
I can speak to the first one...
624.714, Subsection 17(e):
(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or
possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.
|
|
|
|
|
Sietch
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:02 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm Posts: 199 Location: Twin Cities, MN
|
Quote: e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.
...in common areas. Some sticklers make it point to ban carry in the leasing office, and do.
_________________ "My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:14 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
Sietch wrote: Quote: e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests. ...in common areas. Some sticklers make it point to ban carry in the leasing office, and do.
Nowhere in the statute is there the restriction of "common areas". They can be sticklers all they want. Doesn't make it legal.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:33 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
It's always been legal to carry in "private" properties. It's public properties that you need your permit for. (It's not "private" simply because access is regulated, but if it's really private, you'd not even need a permit.)
A public (as in State or local government) owner or tenant of a a "private" area may restrict your access, but there is no legislation allowing them to restrict your right to carry as a condition of granting you access. Only a non-public entity can post.
For example, the mayor's "private" office may or may not allow you in the door, burt they may not condition it on your disarmament, because there is no law permitting them to do so. But his "private" office is still "public", in the sense that you would need a permit to carry.
That's my take.
Common areas in PRIVATE buildings are partially "owned" or "rented" to tenants, so I think a "posting" would have to be agreed by every entity who has rights, and all their names would need to be on every sign on every door to fit the law. New tenants would mean new signs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 6:22 am |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
I had an interesting viewpoint, but I think what WILL HAPPEN outweighs the 'am I right/legal'.
You will be arrested.
As the wise ones say here: "How much justice can you afford?"
Suddenly, spending the money and time on getting a permit doesn't seem so bad.
I do enjoy talking nuances in law, but it would be 95+% speculation. There isn't much case law, since no one does this. I'm not sure a typical lawyer would be very helpful, even after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Re: Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 8:23 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
MostlyHarmless wrote: The interesting thing about this definition is that there are a number of areas that aren't covered, apparently, based on the "open to or made available for use by the public" test: - The common areas of an apartment building where access is limited to residents. Possibly, the grounds and any parking lots adjoining, especially if as is often the case there are signs posted prohibiting use by anyone other than tenants.
- Parking ramps and garages available only to those holding a monthly contract.
- Most places of business that do not engage in retail sales or otherwise invite the public. Particularly, perhaps, the many businesses that are physically accessible only to employees and invitees.
Any case law on this?
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9808/c198298.htm
C1-98-298, Minnesota v. Charles Edward Hicks, Filed August 25, 1998
ISSUE
Does the hallway of a secured apartment building constitute a “public place” under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (1996)?
DECISION
The hallway of a secured apartment building is a “public place” under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a).
|
|
|
|
|
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 6:13 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm Posts: 471 Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
|
Excellent, Jdege.
However, the decision predates the MCPPA which added the specific language (see the OP) defining a public place. The decision itself calls out the fact that the 1996 statute does not define "public place," and that the courts therefore had the discretion to rely upon common definitions of "public place" in various other statutes related to apartments. Therefore, I am not sure State of Mn. v. Hicks remains relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 7:38 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
MostlyHarmless wrote: Excellent, Jdege.
However, the decision predates the MCPPA which added the specific language (see the OP) defining a public place. The decision itself calls out the fact that the 1996 statute does not define "public place," and that the courts therefore had the discretion to rely upon common definitions of "public place" in various other statutes related to apartments. Therefore, I am not sure State of Mn. v. Hicks remains relevant.
My guess is if the circumstances are similar to those of Mr. Hicks (who was trying to break into an apartment with a screwdriver, when he was caught carrying without a permit), the court will find some excuse for convicting him.
|
|
|
|
|
Sietch
|
Post subject: Re: Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm Posts: 199 Location: Twin Cities, MN
|
jdege wrote: MostlyHarmless wrote: The interesting thing about this definition is that there are a number of areas that aren't covered, apparently, based on the "open to or made available for use by the public" test: - The common areas of an apartment building where access is limited to residents. Possibly, the grounds and any parking lots adjoining, especially if as is often the case there are signs posted prohibiting use by anyone other than tenants.
- Parking ramps and garages available only to those holding a monthly contract.
- Most places of business that do not engage in retail sales or otherwise invite the public. Particularly, perhaps, the many businesses that are physically accessible only to employees and invitees.
Any case law on this? http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9808/c198298.htmC1-98-298, Minnesota v. Charles Edward Hicks, Filed August 25, 1998 ISSUE Does the hallway of a secured apartment building constitute a “public place” under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (1996)? DECISION The hallway of a secured apartment building is a “public place” under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a).
Yep. That's the issue. This same law concerns like "if MOA was 100% privately owned, operated, and even constructed, could they ban carrying from the parking lot to, say, A&F?". The answer is: no. It's a common area. Of course, the would still try anyway.
AND, if the mall ownership, or whoever managed it for them, decided to post the management office, it WOULD be legit, just as the leasing office of an apartment complex.
_________________ "My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."
|
|
|
|
|
340PD
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:02 pm Posts: 188 Location: Saint Paul
|
As far as the common areas of an apartment building, I would think that since you are renting and landlords can't forbid you from owning or carrying in your unit; that they would not be able to prevent you from carrying in those common areas either..hallway, parking, entrance, etc.
Also, as far as something like Condos go, I would think you would be on even more solid ground. Since you are essentially an 'owner' of the entire property, along with the rest of the people in the association, they couldn't prevent you from carrying in those same areas. Again, just my opinion and IANAL and all that good stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:40 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm Posts: 471 Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
|
As an example of where this might come up, imagine that a permit holder has More Than A Few Beers and then goes down the hall, say, to get the laundry, or let in a visitor. If the hallway and entrance area were construed to be not public, such activity would be lawful.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
MostlyHarmless wrote: As an example of where this might come up, imagine that a permit holder has More Than A Few Beers and then goes down the hall, say, to get the laundry, or let in a visitor. If the hallway and entrance area were construed to be not public, such activity would be lawful. Yeah, but there's a court case that says those areas are public, alas.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm Posts: 471 Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
|
Well, yes, but before the law changed. Part of the MCPPA was a clear definition of what a "public area" is, something lacking in the old law. I'm guessing that Kimberman had something to do with that.
|
|
|
|
|
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am Posts: 818 Location: Apple Valley, MN
|
Or here's an idea, just get the permit and then private vs public ceases to be much of an issue.
_________________ http://www.eckernet.com My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|