|
|
It is currently Mon May 13, 2024 1:20 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
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
Author |
Message |
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:54 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
BigBlue wrote: joelr wrote: I'll give a different answer: according to 624.7181, it's not legally possible for a permit holder to carry a long gun in public, and therefore it can't be a crime. Huh? Let's take a look at the law that forbids carrying a long gun in public: Quote: Subd. 2.Penalties. Whoever carries a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun on or about the person in a public place is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person under the age of 21 who carries a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 7, on or about the person in a public place is guilty of a felony.
Okay. Now let's look at the definition, in relevant part: Quote: For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.... "Carry" does not include...(3) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun by a person who has a permit under section 624.714; So, again: for purposes of the law that forbids carrying a long gun in public, when a person with a carry permit is toting one about, he or she cannot be said, in a legal sense, to "carry" it. Pinky swear.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
Your instructor was wrong. Who was he or she?
Here's the timeline:
The beginning of time - 1974: No restrictions on the carry of pistols 1974-2003: May-issue pistol carry permits 2003-present: Shall-issue carry permits
The beginning of time - 1993: No restrictions on long gun carry 1993-present: Long gun carry prohibited, unless you have a pistol carry permit*
----------------- * Technically, Joel is right, as he explained above.
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm Posts: 1109
|
Long gun carry by a permit holder has to be the most confusing topic of the carry permit. Everyone has a different opinion on it.
My instructor says it's perfectly legal to carry any rifle openly as long as you have a carry permit. Not advised, but you can do it.
Others say no you can't carry
Others say you can.
Just pointing out it's a confusing topic
Last edited by JimC on Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
Onesimus wrote: The instructor said it was something thought to be unnecessary at the time the bill was passed, but after Katrina hit, it became something that had renewed importance. As he put it, if disaster strikes, people would have the right to patrol their neighborhoods to deter crime. Andrew's right; your instructor is, I would hope, simply ill-informed. Who was he?
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
phorvick
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:14 pm |
|
Forum Moderator |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm Posts: 1571 Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
|
JimC wrote: Long gun carry by a permit holder has to be the most confusing topic of the carry permit. Everyone has a different opinion on it.
My instructor says it's perfectly legal to carry any rifle openly as long as you have a carry permit. Not advised, but you can do it.
Others say no you can't carry
Others say you can.
Just pointing out it's a confusing topic I generally like to stay out of topics like this, but .... It is not at all confusing. Perfectly legal to carry a loaded long gun in public. It is not ambiguous, ambivalent, confusing or unclear. Wise? Different issue.
_________________ Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:22 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
Yup.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
BigBlue
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:45 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am Posts: 151
|
phorvick wrote: I generally like to stay out of topics like this, but ....
It is not at all confusing. Perfectly legal to carry a loaded long gun in public. It is not ambiguous, ambivalent, confusing or unclear.
Wise? Different issue. So my original answer was pretty much on the mark then. BigBlue wrote: I'm sure other folks with better knowledge can answer about long gun carry with your MN permit. I think the answer is "it is allowable", typically followed by "would you like to be the test case?". BB
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:11 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
BigBlue wrote: phorvick wrote: I generally like to stay out of topics like this, but ....
It is not at all confusing. Perfectly legal to carry a loaded long gun in public. It is not ambiguous, ambivalent, confusing or unclear.
Wise? Different issue. So my original answer was pretty much on the mark then. BigBlue wrote: I'm sure other folks with better knowledge can answer about long gun carry with your MN permit. I think the answer is "it is allowable", typically followed by "would you like to be the test case?". BB Pretty much, sure. My one quibble -- and it's a serious one -- is that your answer was apparently (whether actually or not, I dunno) informed by the belief that the issue is what's "allowable," rather than by what's "not forbidden, and therefore up to you." I can't see a good reason why somebody would choose to routinely carry, say, a 30-30 slung over his or her shoulder for personal safety, here and now. Yeah, it would be a better choice in a lot of self-defense situations (not all) than my preferred pocket snubby, but it would be deucedly inconvenient, and not just because it's easy to predict that there'd be a lot of badged folks who are ignorant of 624.7181, the law that says that when a permit holder is doing that, he's not "carrying" a long gun at all, legally speaking. But there's no law forbidding somebody from putting on a clown suit and flippers, and flopping over to Town Hall to sing, "Three Sails in the Sunset," either, and that's "allowable," too.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Onesimus
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:10 am |
|
Member |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 26 Location: Golden Valley
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Your instructor was wrong. Who was he or she?
Here's the timeline:
The beginning of time - 1974: No restrictions on the carry of pistols 1974-2003: May-issue pistol carry permits 2003-present: Shall-issue carry permits
The beginning of time - 1993: No restrictions on long gun carry 1993-present: Long gun carry prohibited, unless you have a pistol carry permit*
----------------- * Technically, Joel is right, as he explained above. I'm confused, because my instructor said it was legal, then you said Joel was right and Joel pretty much said the same thing. joelr wrote: Onesimus wrote: The instructor said it was something thought to be unnecessary at the time the bill was passed, but after Katrina hit, it became something that had renewed importance. As he put it, if disaster strikes, people would have the right to patrol their neighborhoods to deter crime. Andrew's right; your instructor is, I would hope, simply ill-informed. Who was he? I should have said "people with carry permits would have the right..." I took the course from Rusty Ramirez, who teaches at the Rogers Cabella's.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:23 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
Onesimus wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: Your instructor was wrong. Who was he or she?
Here's the timeline:
The beginning of time - 1974: No restrictions on the carry of pistols 1974-2003: May-issue pistol carry permits 2003-present: Shall-issue carry permits
The beginning of time - 1993: No restrictions on long gun carry 1993-present: Long gun carry prohibited, unless you have a pistol carry permit*
----------------- * Technically, Joel is right, as he explained above. I'm confused, because my instructor said it was legal, then you said Joel was right and Joel pretty much said the same thing. joelr wrote: Onesimus wrote: The instructor said it was something thought to be unnecessary at the time the bill was passed, but after Katrina hit, it became something that had renewed importance. As he put it, if disaster strikes, people would have the right to patrol their neighborhoods to deter crime. Andrew's right; your instructor is, I would hope, simply ill-informed. Who was he? I should have said "people with carry permits would have the right..." I took the course from Rusty Ramirez, who teaches at the Rogers Cabella's. Ah. That explains it.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:05 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
Onesimus wrote: The instructor said it was something thought to be unnecessary at the time the bill was passed, but after Katrina hit, it became something that had renewed importance. Ah. This sentence is the confusing one. What is "it" and who thought it unimportant? Long gun carry has never been prohibited to pistol carry permit holders, ever. Katrina had no effect on this.
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:12 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Onesimus wrote: The instructor said it was something thought to be unnecessary at the time the bill was passed, but after Katrina hit, it became something that had renewed importance. Ah. This sentence is the confusing one. What is "it" and who thought it unimportant? Long gun carry has never been prohibited to pistol carry permit holders, ever. Katrina had no effect on this. Doesn't much matter. The Katrina Change story is just Rusty blowing smoke. I don't know whether he made it up, or heard it somewhere, and it really doesn't matter which.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
plblark
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:32 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am Posts: 4468
|
I teach it pretty much from the time line Andrew mentioned. The difference between carry vs transport, what constitutes legal transport, what is a motor vehicle. Not prohibited / legal.That which is not prohibited is allowed and this is SPECIFICALLY not prohibited in the sense that they spell out what is prohibited and then specifically say this isn't it.That's about the point where people chuckle at the it's not carry if you have a carry permit bit. Apparently the long gun just levitates. Then we talk about legal vs wise and the attention it could draw. Phorvick wrote: Perfectly legal to carry a loaded long gun in public. It is not ambiguous, ambivalent, confusing or unclear. Wise? Different issue. I'd say Katrina gave this relevance and a point of reference, not renewed importance. WHY would you ever want to carry a long gun? It's not a perfect example because we've seen how the NOPD and other agencies responded. I point out that there are stories of neighbors banding together and truly patrolling their neighborhoods during the absence of any social order. I use it as a small example of the limits we THINK are placed on law enforcement / the government / ourselves / our fellow man vs what may happen in times of stress. Then we talk about the Officers that stood on the elderly lady's back and took her revolver "for her safety" It's a bit of how did we get here, a bit of how does this work, a cautionary word on transport, and an opportunity to discuss paying attention to civil liberties and inalienable rights. Education as activism and teaching with analogies. Helping the student tie an occasionally misunderstood (by the general public and some students) issue to real world events.
_________________ Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com) Click here for current Carry Classes "There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke
Last edited by plblark on Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:42 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
That's fine. Long gun carry is one of those very, very minor issues that can be used to spotlight far more important ones.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Re: Continuing Education Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:03 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Your instructor was wrong. Who was he or she?
Here's the timeline:
The beginning of time - 1974: No restrictions on the carry of pistols 1974-2003: May-issue pistol carry permits 2003-present: Shall-issue carry permits
The beginning of time - 1993: No restrictions on long gun carry 1993-present: Long gun carry prohibited, unless you have a pistol carry permit*
You're missing one important factor: Beginning-of-time-1985: Local communities can, and some did, impose their own restrictions and/or licensing systems on the carrying of handguns or long guns 1985-present: The state legislature preempts all local regulation concerning firearms with a few narrow exceptions. There were restrictions on carrying handguns and long guns, in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other cities, prior to 1974.
_________________ Jeff Dege
|
|
|
|
|
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 12 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
|
|
|