Damn, JC, that seems a bit harsh. When I was wearing the badge and stumbled across a faux pas like that, I'd give a good ass chewing and send them on their way. If weather permitted, I'd make them put them on right then and there. Hell, we're all human. No need to have guns drawn for expired tabs unless the vehicle fit the description of a major crime that had just recently happened. And then to write a ticket on TOP of that when the tabs were actually present with the vehicle is just to the point of being fascist.

is just to the point of being fascist.

to Jlaux
Jun 27 (2 days ago)
Chief Laux,

I wanted to take a moment to check in on any progress or communication
from the legal staff regarding this issue.

I'd also like to express my unease about Ms. Sorenson e-mailing
requesting information "for her files". Not only does it raise flags
to have "files" created merely for asking a polite question but Ms.
Sorenson communicated my full name and city of residence along with
purchase permit status to an anonymous e-mail account she had no way
to validate.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Thank you for your time and service,

August 6, 2007,

Dear Mr. Bxxx,

Chief Laux requested that the City Attorney’s Office respond to your June 23, 2007, e-mail inquiry regarding the signage at the Creekside Community Center. You raise two issues in that communication. The first relates to the sign requiring persons carrying firearms to report to the police department to present their permit and government issued photo identification so that it can the validity of the permit can be ascertained. The second relates to the sign informing persons that when an area is reserved for private use and under the exclusive control of a private party that firearms will be banned by the private party.

It is correct that the City is prohibited from banning guns from those portions of its structures controlled and operated by it or another governmental entity for a governmental purpose. However, it is not prohibited from posting signage falling short of a ban on guns by the government. The sign requiring that persons carrying a firearm verify the validity of their permit is simply an efficient mechanism by which the Bloomington Police Department can effectuate the following section of Minnesota Statutes §624.714,

Subd. 1b. Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the
permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer... (d) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder shall disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.

The law does not require that a police officer personally approach each and every person suspected to be armed to request this information; such would be neither efficient nor safe in a public area.

The second sign simply places persons on notice that if a portion of City property is reserved for a private function, the private party, as part of the reservation process will be banning firearms for the duration of its use. As you realize, not all publicly owned property is open to the public. Access may be restricted to areas, personnel and services. When a portion of City property is reserved for the exclusive use and control of a private party, the City can impose a number of restrictions or conditions on that use so as to protect the City property and the persons making use of it. Rules are necessary because during the private party’s use of the property, it is not effectively under the control of City personnel. Hence, the City requires the user and his or her guests to abide by the Facility Use Regulations, and the City’s policies banning not simply illegal conduct, but also otherwise legal behavior, such as smoking, alcohol use, and sexual harassment. The City is not acting in the capacity of a landlord in that facility reservation is not profit making enterprise and the ban is that of the person seeking to reserve City property for his or her own private use. Therefore, there is no violation of Minn. Stat. §624.714.

You may be correct that permit holders can be some of our most law-abiding citizens, however not everyone carrying a firearm has a valid permit to carry. It is the City’s job to effectively and efficiently sort out the criminals from those persons who have gone through the permit process. Both of the signs at issue attempt to accomplish that goal. I invite you to have the attorneys you consulted with contact me directly with any remaining questions or concerns. I’m guessing that I am well acquainted with one of them, Mr. David Gross. If so, please tell him hello from me.


Sincerely,

Sandra H. Johnson

Sandra Henkels Johnson
Associate City Attorney

cc: Mark Bernhardson – City Manager
John T. Laux – Chief of Police

Ms. Johnson,

You referenced §624.714,Subd. 1b and stated:

How does this differ from the legal requirement to carry a valid Driver's License when operating a motor vehicle? This provision of the MCPPA statute mimics the Driver's License statutes..

171.08 LICENSEE TO HAVE LICENSE IN POSSESSION.
"Every licensee shall have the license in immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display it upon demand of a peace officer, an authorized representative of the department, or an officer authorized by law to enforce the laws relating to the operation of motor vehicles on public streets and highways. Unless the person is the holder of a limited license issued under section 171.30, no person charged with violating the possession requirement shall be convicted if the person produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver's license previously issued to that person for the class of vehicle being driven which was valid at the time of arrest or satisfactory proof that at the time of the arrest the person was validly licensed for the class of vehicle being driven. The licensee shall also, upon request of any officer, write the licensee's
name in the presence of the officer to determine the identity of the
licensee."

§624.714,Subd. 1b DISPLAY OF PERMIT; PENALTY.
"(a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.
(b) A citation issued for violating paragraph (a) must be dismissed if the person demonstrates, in court or in the office of the arresting officer, that the person was authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation.
(c) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder must write a sample signature in the officer's presence to aid in verifying the person's identity.
(d) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder shall disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm."

The law references a lawful demand by a police officer. It does NOT require permit holders to check in. I suspect that similar signs requiring all motorists to come on down to the local PD and show their papers would be met with a firestorm of public outcry as well as lawsuits.

On the issue of private events banning guns, you wrote:


It appears that the city is attempting to have its cake and eat it too.

This indicates that it is the City posting the event or demanding the posting. The city is effectively imposing restrictions through rule or Regulation which limit the exercise of a Carry Permit.

Even going the route of restricted access does not effectively cover this issue as the Renter has paid for use of city property and while the city may restrict those areas to the Renter's guests, it gets into the City restricting the Renter or their Guests. It's definitely a Renter vs. City control issue. Either the renter is the tenant or not. If not, the City is preempted from posting. If the renter is indeed a tenant, the City is preempted as well if they attempt to extend a ban to the Tenant's guests.

Both of these issues are more in line with acting under the color of authority to restrict persons with a Carry Permit from city property which is preempted by state law.

You also stated:

We have this quaint notion of presumed innocence and probable cause in our interactions with agents of the government. It predates the founding of our country and is codified in law. If a person gives probable cause for police interaction or permit status confirmation, we have existing law which requires the permit holder to provide it upon demand. Possession of a permit is not probable cause. Possession of a firearm with a permit is not actionable.

The city's chosen method to sort the legal from the illegal places a burden on the law abiding citizens which is odious and preempted. This restriction is not consistent with similar portions of Minnesota law. These signs serve only to place additional restrictions on the permit holder and leave the city open to liability and litigation should it choose to enforce them.

It is interesting is that John Laux makes himself personally responsible for the sign. "By order of police Chief John Laux..".

Do you know if there is a written "order" that he signed? A Data Practices request for a copy of the the original "Order", (as referenced by the sign), would impose a deadline for a response upon the City of Bloomington, - either a copy of the "Order" or an admission that such "Order" was never issued, or simply an "oral order".

(oral order given to who???, - So folks can ask them about it? - And under what authority?).

As to my assistant creating a 'file' on you, I do request that she get me basic background information on parties I meet with so I can be as responsive as possible. The information gathered goes no further than my desk and is disposed of after the meeting takes place. I do not want this done in a way that make people feel that they are being 'investigated' before I will meet with them. Ms. Sorensen and I have discussed this and I have indicated to her that the secondary follow-up is not appropriate.