Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:04 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.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 MN case law re use of force etc 
Author Message
 Post subject: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:21 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
I originally received this from John Caile.....gives you a good starting point for research...
---
Justification that exonerates a defendant from criminal responsibility for the use of deadly force is limited by an objective standard, where society would agree that the use of deadly force was necessary, and a part of that objectivity analysis includes the duty to retreat if at all possible to avoid the harm. (Per Anderson, Russell A., C.J., with two justices joining and one justice concurring.) State v. Edwards, 2006, 717 N.W.2d 405. Homicide 769; Homicide 799

Burden is upon the state, in a homicide case involving a claim of self-defense, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justifiable. (Per Anderson, Russell A., C.J., with two justices joining and one justice concurring.) State v. Edwards, 2006, 717 N.W.2d 405. Homicide 942

Defendant's offer of proof, which alleged that defendant shot victim in order to protect defendant's estranged wife and wife's children, did not support availability of defense-of-others defense in prosecution for first-degree murder, since defendant was aggressor, and use of deadly force was totally without reason. State v. Richardson, 2003, 670 N.W.2d 267, habeas corpus dismissed 2006 WL 47339. Homicide 774

Ordinarily, one who is aggressor, provoking difficulty in which he finds it necessary to use deadly force, has no right to claim self-defense. State v. Richardson, 2003, 670 N.W.2d 267, habeas corpus dismissed 2006 WL 47339. Homicide 774

Justification for homicide in defense of another parallels defense of self. State v. Richardson, 2003, 670 N.W.2d 267, habeas corpus dismissed 2006 WL 47339. Homicide 757

To find that a defendant acted in self-defense, a jury must find that the defendant reasonably believed that force was necessary and that the defendant used only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the harm feared. State v. Glowacki, 2001, 630 N.W.2d 392, rehearing denied, on remand 2001 WL 1182376. Assault And Battery 67

The elements of “self-defense” are: (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant; (2) the defendant's actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief; and (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger. State v. Nystrom, 1999, 596 N.W.2d 256. Homicide 766

Elements of self-defense are (1) absence of aggression or provocation on part of defendant; (2) defendant's actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) existence of reasonable grounds for that belief; and (4) absence of reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid danger. State v. Basting, 1997, 572 N.W.2d 281. Assault And Battery 67

Jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant was not justified in killing victim, where jury could reasonably have concluded that following first of two sets of shots no reasonable person would have believed any peril existed and that no reasonable person would have elected to kill, given testimony that defendant shot victim again as he lay weaponless on ground due to first set of shots, no visible threat was posed to defendant after victim fell to ground following first set of shots, and defendant paused for at least 30 seconds after first two shots before shooting two more times, and where jury could reasonably have concluded that defendant did not fulfill his duty to retreat, as evidence demonstrated that defendant was twice asked to leave in order to avoid further conflict with victim, but refused. State v. Buchanan, 1988, 431 N.W.2d 542. Homicide 1198; Homicide 1199

Defendant's conviction for third-degree assault was sustained by evidence that he approached victim, engaged in argument with him, raised his fist to strike the victim, grabbed the victim's hand, and twisted one finger until it broke, notwithstanding defendant's claim that he was acting in self-defense. State v. Witucki, App.1988, 420 N.W.2d 217, review denied. Assault And Battery 91.5(3)

Self-defense did not justify defendant's actions in threatening two innocent bystanders in an effort to seek out and even the score with his antagonists at a bar. State v. Soine, App.1984, 348 N.W.2d 824, review denied. Assault And Battery 67

Evidence in defendant's prosecution for assault with dangerous weapon, including defendant's admission that victim was about eight feet from him at time of shooting, that victim was standing still, and that he shot victim without warning, was sufficient to justify jury conclusion that State met its burden of proving defendant did not act in self-defense. State v. Bland, 1983, 337 N.W.2d 378. Assault And Battery 91.13(5)

Self-defense does not apply to all behaviors that may constitute violations of the disorderly conduct statute; rather, the offense to which a person asserts self-defense must be considered an offense of a physical nature, carrying the potential to cause bodily harm, that is, an offense against the person. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Disorderly Conduct 2

Principles of self-defense apply to assault cases. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Assault And Battery 67

The four elements of self-defense are: (1) an absence of aggression or provocation; (2) an actual and honest belief that imminent death or great bodily harm would result; (3) a reasonable basis existed for this belief; and (4) an absence of reasonable means to retreat or otherwise avoid the physical conflict. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Assault And Battery 67; Homicide 766

The claim of self-defense is sufficiently raised when a defendant creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the level of force used was justified. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Assault And Battery 67; Homicide 766

Reasonable belief, self-defense
To excuse or justify homicide under statutes governing authorized use of force and justifiable taking of life, killing must have been done in belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm, judgment of defendant as to gravity of peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances, and defendant's election to kill must have been such as reasonable man would have made in light of danger to be apprehended. State v. Richardson, 2003, 670 N.W.2d 267, habeas corpus dismissed 2006 WL 47339. Homicide 794; Homicide 795

In cases where death resulted from self-defense, a defendant must have reasonably feared that he was threatened with great bodily harm or death and that the use of force to prevent that harm was reasonable. State v. Glowacki, 2001, 630 N.W.2d 392, rehearing denied, on remand 2001 WL 1182376. Homicide 795

The Cheek exception to general rule that ignorance of law is no defense to criminal prosecutions applies only to mistakes of law, particularly violations of complex tax law, and not to mistakes of fact, and thus defendant was not entitled to “imperfect self-defense” instruction in homicide prosecution that jury should adjudicate his claim of self-defense based upon his subjective belief that he had justifiably acted. Sanford v. State, App.1993, 499 N.W.2d 496, review denied. Homicide 1484

Finding that defendant's judgment of the gravity of the peril he faced was unreasonable, so that he could not assert self-defense to charged homicide, was supported by his own admission that he did not see any of his three victims holding a weapon, that he knew that the victim who had previously threatened to kill him was unarmed at the time of the killings, and that two of the victims were substantially smaller than he. State v. Sanford, App.1990, 450 N.W.2d 580, review granted, review vacated, denial of post-conviction relief affirmed 499 N.W.2d 496, review denied. Homicide 1201

Self-defense instruction which required finding that defendant reacted in reasonable apprehension to threat of great bodily harm or death was appropriate and defendant was not unduly prejudiced, where defendant intended to stab victim, even if death was not intended. State v. Smith, App.1985, 374 N.W.2d 520, review denied.

Legal excuse of self-defense is generally available only to those who act honestly and in good faith and rule requires: absence of aggression or provocation on part of person charged; actual and honest belief of assaulting party that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony and that it was necessary that he take action he did; existence of reasonable grounds for such belief; and duty on part of party charged to retreat or avoid danger if reasonably possible. State v. Baker, 1968, 280 Minn. 518, 160 N.W.2d 240. Assault And Battery 67

To justify the use of force on the ground of self-defense, it is not essential to show that in fact it was necessary to use such force in order to protect the defendant from imminent personal injury; for it is sufficient if it appears that the necessity was real or apparent; the mere belief of the defendant that it is necessary to use force is not alone sufficient to make out a case of self-defense; for the facts as they appear to him at the time must be such as to reasonably justify the belief. Germolus v. Sausser, 1901, 83 Minn. 141, 85 N.W. 946. Assault And Battery 13

One has no right to commit an assault with intent to do great bodily harm to another for a wrong which he has not reasonable ground to believe to be dangerous to himself. State v. Tripp, 1885, 34 Minn. 25, 24 N.W. 290. Assault And Battery 67

Self-defense is applicable to a charge of disorderly conduct where the behavior forming the basis of the offense presents the threat of bodily harm. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Disorderly Conduct 2

In a claim of self defense, a defendant may use reasonable force only in the absence of a reasonable alternative. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Assault And Battery 67; Homicide 766

A number of factors are relevant to the determination of whether the level of force used was reasonable, in a claim of self-defense: age and size of victim and defendant; victim's reputation for violence; previous threats and/or altercations between victim and defendant; defendant's aggression, if any; and victim's provocation, if any. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Assault And Battery 67; Homicide 1051(2)


Duty to retreat, self-defense
For purposes of a claim of self-defense in a homicide prosecution, there is a duty to retreat and avoid danger if reasonably possible; the duty to retreat relates to the election to kill, making a killing unjustified if the danger was reasonably avoidable. (Per Anderson, Russell A., C.J., with two justices joining and one justice concurring.) State v. Edwards, 2006, 717 N.W.2d 405. Homicide 799

There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident, although any use of force must be reasonable under the specific circumstances of each case. State v. Glowacki, 2001, 630 N.W.2d 392, rehearing denied, on remand 2001 WL 1182376. Assault And Battery 67

Defendant did not have duty to retreat before acting in self-defense during altercation with a co-resident in home in which they both resided. State v. Glowacki, App.2000, 615 N.W.2d 843, review granted, reversed 630 N.W.2d 392, rehearing denied, on remand 2001 WL 1182376. Assault And Battery 13

There is a duty to retreat if reasonably possible, even in one's place of abode, prior to using lethal force in self-defense. State v. Carothers, App.1998, 585 N.W.2d 64, review granted, reversed 594 N.W.2d 897. Homicide 802

As against claim of self-defense in homicide prosecution, duty to retreat or avoid danger if reasonably possible applies even if danger is present in defendant's home. State v. Hennum, App.1988, 428 N.W.2d 859, review granted, reversed on other grounds 441 N.W.2d 793. Homicide 802

Any right of self-defense defendant might have had ended when the aggressors withdrew, leaving defendant the opportunity to retreat in safety. State v. Soine, App.1984, 348 N.W.2d 824, review denied. Assault And Battery 67

Instruction that “before you can avail yourself of self-defense, you must retreat and avoid the danger if you can reasonably do so,” and that “if you can reasonably avoid it, you must retreat and avoid the danger, rather than charge into the fight and flail away,” properly characterized law of retreat. State v. Austin, 1983, 332 N.W.2d 21. Homicide 1485

Where defendant posed as homosexual and invited advances, and made no attempt to retreat or otherwise avoid the advances, defendant was precluded from claiming that shooting of victim was an authorized use of force despite defendant's reasonable belief that victim was about to commit offense of sodomy against him. State v. Morgan, 1980, 296 N.W.2d 397. Homicide 784; Homicide 800

Where a party has not retreated from or attempted to shun the combat, but has unnecessarily entered into it, his act is not one of self-defense. State v. Baker, 1968, 280 Minn. 518, 160 N.W.2d 240. Assault And Battery 67

A defendant who, with a number of companions, wrongfully invades plaintiff's premises, and in doing so assaults the latter, and makes no attempt whatever to desist or withdraw from the fray until it is ended by plaintiff's resistance and the interference of others, cannot, on the ground of self-defense, justify the injury to the plaintiff resulting from the fray. Guyer v. Smullen, 1924, 160 Minn. 114, 199 N.W. 465. Assault And Battery 13

If a defendant has not attempted to evade or retreat from combat, but instead has needlessly joined into it, that use of force is not self-defense. State v. Soukup, App.2003, 656 N.W.2d 424, review denied. Assault And Battery 67; Homicide 799

Defense of dwelling
The defense of dwelling defense is not available between co-residents, but only for those who use force against an intruder. State v. Glowacki, App.2000, 615 N.W.2d 843, review granted, reversed 630 N.W.2d 392, rehearing denied, on remand 2001 WL 1182376. Assault And Battery 15

Defense of dwelling defense anticipates an unauthorized intrusion into defendant's dwelling; when defendant and victim reside in same dwelling, defendant cannot raise defense of dwelling defense. State v. Hare, 1998, 575 N.W.2d 828. Homicide 760

Defendant did not have legitimate defense of dwelling claim in prosecution for murder of another resident of same apartment in which defendant lived at time of incident. State v. Hare, 1998, 575 N.W.2d 828. Homicide 760

_________________
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


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:09 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
I find reading through the jury instructions can be helpful. Here are some of them that are on point.

Quote:
CRIMJIG 7.05 Justifiable Taking of Life


In Defense of Self[FN1]

No crime is committed when a person takes the life of another person, even intentionally, if the defendant's action was taken in resisting or preventing an offense the defendant reasonably believed exposed the defendant (or another) to death or great bodily harm.
In order for a killing to be justified for this reason, four conditions must be met. First, the killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm. Second, the judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which (he) (she) (or another) was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances. Third, the defendant's election to defend must have been such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived and the existence of any alternative way of avoiding the peril. Fourth, there was no reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger.
All four conditions must be met. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.


In Defense of Dwelling

No crime is committed when a person takes the life of another person, even intentionally, if the defendant's action was taken in preventing the commission of a felony in the defendant's (dwelling) (place of abode).
In order for a killing to be justified for this reason, three conditions must be met. First, the defendant's action was done to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling. Second, the defendant's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances. Third, the defendant's election to defend (his) (her) dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived. All three conditions must be met. The defendant has no duty to retreat. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

[FN1] Note that in cases where the defendant claims to have acted in self-defense but contends that the killing was accidental, CRIMJIG 7.06 may be more appropriate.


Quote:
CRIMJIG 7.06 Self-Defense—Death Not the Result

The defendant is not guilty of a crime if the defendant used reasonable force against _________ to resist (or to aid ___________ in resisting) an offense against the person, and such an offense was being committed or the defendant reasonably believed that it was.
It is lawful for a person, who is being assaulted and who has reasonable grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon the person, to defend from an attack. In doing so, the person may use all force and means that the person reasonably believes to be necessary and that would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent an injury that appears to be imminent. An assault is (the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another) (or) (an intentional attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another) (or) (an act done with intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death in another.
The kind and degree of force a person may lawfully use in self-defense is limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
(The rule of self-defense does not authorize one to seek revenge or to take into his or her own hands the punishment of an offender.)

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:11 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
Quote:
CRIMJIG 7.07 Self-Defense—Revival of Aggressor's Right of Self-Defense

If the defendant began or induced the assault that led to the necessity of using force in the defendant's own defense, the right to stand the defendant's ground and thus defend (himself) (herself) is not immediately available to (him) (her). Instead, the defendant must first have declined to carry on the assault and have honestly tried to escape from it, and must clearly and fairly have informed the adversary of a desire for peace and of abandonment of the assault. Only after the defendant has done that will the law justify the defendant in thereafter standing (his) (her) ground and using force against the other person. An “assault” is (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.


Quote:
CRIMJIG 7.08 Self-Defense—Retreat

The legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. This includes the duty to retreat[FN1] or avoid the danger if reasonably possible.


Each of these has a comments section I would be happy to post if there is interest.

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:33 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
Jeff wrote:
Each of these has a comments section I would be happy to post if there is interest.


There is.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:34 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
Jeff wrote:
Each of these has a comments section I would be happy to post if there is interest.

I'd love to see the comments.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:40 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
I was going to post the pdf files but the forum is telling me I can't do that.

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:01 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Email them to me -- andrew at madfi dot org -- and I'll get them posted. And thanks!

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:16 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
IMHO, it would be a good idea for instructors who publish the Statutes for their students to also publish the relevant Criminal Jury Instructions for self defense. (CRIMJIG s) While not "the Law" per se, the CRIMJIGs, (modified slightly in to fit the individal facts of the case) are exactly what your jury will read as it decides the fate of your sorry butt after you have to shoot somebody.

I've always found Self Defense to be a very tricky part of the law and the relevant statutes are difficult to apply. (Which is why the jury is given "jury instructions" instead of copies of the statutes which are "the Law".)

The CRIMJIGs are the best efforts to explain the law without using legalese, and prosecutors and defense lawyers will tailor questions and arguments to the exact wording of the CRIMJIG's which they expect the Judge to read to the jury and send to the jury room.

If one reads the Statutes first, and then the relevant CRIMIG, it usually helps one's understanding of the law.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:30 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Dick Unger wrote:
IMHO, it would be a good idea for instructors who publish the Statutes for their students to also publish the relevant Criminal Jury Instructions for self defense. (CRIMJIG s) While not "the Law" per se, the CRIMJIGs, (modified slightly in to fit the individal facts of the case) are exactly what your jury will read as it decides the fate of your sorry butt after you have to shoot somebody.

I've always found Self Defense to be a very tricky part of the law and the relevant statutes are difficult to apply. (Which is why the jury is given "jury instructions" instead of copies of the statutes which are "the Law".)

The CRIMJIGs are the best efforts to explain the law without using legalese, and prosecutors and defense lawyers will tailor questions and arguments to the exact wording of the CRIMJIG's which they expect the Judge to read to the jury and send to the jury room.

If one reads the Statutes first, and then the relevant CRIMIG, it usually helps one's understanding of the law.
Sounds to me like a very useful thing to have in Reference, here. Do we have a volunteer with access?

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:35 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
Unfortunately, I don't anymore.. :cry: But active lawyers would have it available.... :)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:24 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
I emailed Andrew the files. They could just as well be posted in Reference.

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:36 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Woot!

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:21 am 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:02 pm
Posts: 87
Location: waaaay west of the cities
I am off to a meeting right now, but give me a little time and I can see if I am able to post them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:07 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Jeff wrote:
I emailed Andrew the files. They could just as well be posted in Reference.

You, sir, rock.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: MN case law re use of force etc
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:12 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
CRIMJIG 7.05 Justifiable Taking of Life
CRIMJIG 7.06 Self-Defense—Death Not the Result
CRIMJIG 7.07 Self-Defense—Revival of Aggressor's Right of Self-Defense
CRIMJIG 7.08 Self-Defense—Retreat

Download PDF --> CrimJig 7.05 - 7.08 inclusive

Thanks, Jeff!

Added to reference section here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=13828

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 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 42 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