Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:29 am

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




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public 
Author Message
 Post subject: Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:53 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:10 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:02 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

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."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:14 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

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


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:33 am 
Longtime Regular

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 6:22 am 
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 8:23 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

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).


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 6:13 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 7:38 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Carry without a permit in buildings closed to the public
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:23 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

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.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).

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."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:39 pm 
Senior Member

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:40 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:03 pm 
The Man
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:17 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:01 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group