Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://ellegon.com/forum/

Discharge of a firearm in St. Paul
http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12767		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Wed May 06, 2009 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Discharge of a firearm in St. Paul
What am I missing here? Does this mean we can fire a gun in St. Paul?

St. Paul City Code:
Quote:
Link
Sec. 225.06. Discharge of firearms.
(a) When discharge permitted. No firearm shall be discharged or attempted to be discharged within the city except in the following cases:
(1) In lawful defense of person or property against an unlawful act.
(2) By persons holding permits to carry a firearm pursuant to state statute(s), peace officers or military personnel in the course of their duties and in necessary connection with enforcement of the laws.
(3) By persons who discharge blank ammunition in connection with their participation in a public event for which a permit has been issued under section 225.05(3) or as a starter's gun for an organized athletic event.
(4) Upon an indoor target range operated under the supervision of a registered target shooting or sportsmen's club.
(5) Upon an outdoor target range operated under the supervision of a registered target shooting or sportsmen's club where shotguns are used.
(6) In connection with a licensed carnival, where the weapon is so secured as to prevent its being fired except within the confines of an enclosed range impervious to the passage of bullets.
(7) By employees of the Como Zoo in the course of their duties.
(8.) By employees of the animal control division in the course of their duties


Or does this part apply, and if so what the heck are my duties? Practicing :wink: ?
Quote:
(2) ...in the course of their duties and in necessary connection with enforcement of the laws.
Author:  mrokern [ Wed May 06, 2009 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Actually, I'm reading the "course of duties" clause as applying to law enforcement and military, making the permit holder exempt from even that requirement. Of course, IANAL and when you get cuffed and stuffed, don't blame me. :wink:

Interesting little tidbit there. :lol:

-Mark
Author:  nmat [ Wed May 06, 2009 9:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Its been said before, test cases are for other people. But wait, you're an "other", let's test this! I'll bring the video camera. I bet you can't knock the satellite dish of your neighbor's roof. I'm sure the St. Paul police and Ramsey county sheriffs department will just let you go about your business once you point out that part of the law. :lol: :wink: :lol:

(For the record, dripping in sarcasm)
Author:  DeanC [ Wed May 06, 2009 9:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Heck - if I lived in St. Paul, I'd be looking into starting a carnival in my basement.
Author:  djeepp [ Wed May 06, 2009 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Discharge of a firearm in St. Paul
PocketProtector642 wrote:
What am I missing here? Does this mean we can fire a gun in St. Paul?

St. Paul City Code:
Quote:
Link
Sec. 225.06. Discharge of firearms.
(a) When discharge permitted. No firearm shall be discharged or attempted to be discharged within the city except in the following cases:
(1) In lawful defense of person or property against an unlawful act.
(2) By persons holding permits to carry a firearm pursuant to state statute(s), peace officers or military personnel in the course of their duties and in necessary connection with enforcement of the laws.
(3) By persons who discharge blank ammunition in connection with their participation in a public event for which a permit has been issued under section 225.05(3) or as a starter's gun for an organized athletic event.
(4) Upon an indoor target range operated under the supervision of a registered target shooting or sportsmen's club.
(5) Upon an outdoor target range operated under the supervision of a registered target shooting or sportsmen's club where shotguns are used.
(6) In connection with a licensed carnival, where the weapon is so secured as to prevent its being fired except within the confines of an enclosed range impervious to the passage of bullets.
(7) By employees of the Como Zoo in the course of their duties.
(8.) By employees of the animal control division in the course of their duties


Or does this part apply, and if so what the heck are my duties? Practicing :wink: ?
Quote:
(2) ...in the course of their duties and in necessary connection with enforcement of the laws.


It appears to me that "...in the course of their duties and in necessary connection with enforcement of the laws" applies to the permit holder as well. Peace officers or military personnel is preceded by a comma, not a period. If the law was meant to say that "in the course of their duties" applied only to cops and military, it would have been a separate sentence.

That being said, the "duties" clause leaves it nice and gray for your favorite ambulance chaser or over zealous prosecutor.
Author:  Q_Continuum [ Wed May 06, 2009 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 
My reading is it gives us an out, so if you are carrying on your permit, and have to use your carried weapon, you don't have to worry about the 'discharge of a firearm' rap that a malicious DA would try to stick you with.
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Wed May 06, 2009 2:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Q_Continuum wrote:
My reading is it gives us an out, so if you are carrying on your permit, and have to use your carried weapon, you don't have to worry about the 'discharge of a firearm' rap that a malicious DA would try to stick you with.

I think that this one is what covers what you are talking about...
Quote:
(1) In lawful defense of person or property against an unlawful act.
Author:  CustomEclipseII [ Wed May 06, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
My guess is that the City Attorney would ask the County Attorney to try and enforce this law:

Minnesota Statute § 609.66, Subdivision 1a:

Quote:
Felony crimes; silencers prohibited; reckless discharge.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 1h, whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):

(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm;

(2) intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another; or

(3) recklessly discharges a firearm within a municipality.
Author:  Sietch [ Wed May 06, 2009 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Without qualifying this as a professional opinion, I think that:

1) it's a fair bet that the widely understood intent of the the section is NOT to sequester permit holders from the rules 225.06 establishes for the general public
2) nor is it intended to suggest that carry permit holders are duty-bound to law enforcement
3) it could be better worded, and it's actually pretty curious that it isn't. :?

Still, "the law is the law is the law, as it's written" has turned over seemingly commonsense prosecutions before.
So, say it happens. Mr. Test Case will breath easier, and the city will amend the language within a week.
Author:  para45lda [ Thu May 07, 2009 3:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
(1) In lawful defense of person or property against an unlawful act.


so its always been told to me that you cant use a firearm in protection of property but this is saying you can as far as i read it. any clarification on that?
Author:  Traveler [ Thu May 07, 2009 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wasn't this all worked out years ago? There was an erstwhile gun store owner on Snelling Avenue in Saint Paul, I believe, that ran into regulatory issues and during that scuffle was found to have been test firing firearms in the basement of his establishment. Is my recollection accurate? I do believe that his establishment was located just off Snelling and Thomas, right near a Christian house of worship, a playground, and other things that make liberals shout and scream.

:roll:
Author:  parap1445 [ Thu May 07, 2009 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
When My family owned a gunshop on St Paul's east side many moons ago we test fired guns in the basement all the time. I guess I never even thought about the legalities.
Author:  Dick Unger [ Fri May 08, 2009 6:34 am ]
Post subject: 
CustomEclipseII wrote:
My guess is that the City Attorney would ask the County Attorney to try and enforce this law:

Minnesota Statute § 609.66, Subdivision 1a:

Quote:
Felony crimes; silencers prohibited; reckless discharge.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 1h, whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):

(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm;

(2) intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another; or

(3) recklessly discharges a firearm within a municipality.


This is the law for RECKLESS discharge. That's something the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and 12 jurors would have to agree. Somebody shooting, say, in his basement into a backstop in a gunstore basement probably won't be found to be reckless.

For the City charge, they just have to prove the gun was intentionally fired in the city by the defendant. Usually that won't even be subject to reasonable dispute.
Author:  CustomEclipseII [ Fri May 08, 2009 7:23 am ]
Post subject: 
I certainly recognize the distinction between merely discharging a firearm and recklessly discharging one; but that doesn't mean that the city attorney won't ask the county attorney to try and enforce the reckless discharge statute.

Forcing an individual to go through the process (even if the case is ultimately dismissed by a Judge, or a jury returns a verdict of not guilty) still exacts a certain amount of "flesh." It might not be the whole pound they want, but it is by no means nominal.
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Fri May 08, 2009 12:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dick Unger wrote:
For the City charge, they just have to prove the gun was intentionally fired in the city by the defendant. Usually that won't even be subject to reasonable dispute.


What would they charge you with?

Quote:
Sec. 225.06. Discharge of firearms.
(a) When discharge permitted. No firearm shall be discharged or attempted to be discharged within the city except in the following cases:
(1) In lawful defense of person or property against an unlawful act.
(2) By persons holding permits to carry a firearm pursuant to state statute(s), peace officers or military personnel in the course of their duties and in necessary connection with enforcement of the laws.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/