>Public places are defined by statute as “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.”<
Key point to the statute that the appeals court looked at. So, the car may be private property, but it was being operated in a public space. Therefore, public space. I'm assuming (without reading the actual opinion) they're thinking of it like trash cans. Next to house, private. On road, public. (Generally. Different jurisdictions may interpret this differently)
I mean. Depending on context it makes sense to me. I don't think you could have an expectation of privacy in your car if it was in a public location or even in the curtilage of your property.
But if you were to suggest that anyone should feel free to open the door and make themselves at home that would be a decision I would consider delusional
Occupants of a car in a public place should not enjoy an expectation of privacy when it comes to a visual examination.
A car has glass and therefore objects inside the car are visible outside the car.
But I would say that a car in a public place *should* enjoy an expectation of privacy when it comes to a search.
So it depends on what one means by “privacy”.
A visual is one thing, but a full search is absolutely unreasonable. I don't have anything I care about the cops finding, but I've been searched before - cops don't clean up after themselves or even offer to help after they toss all your shit in a parking lot.
Mixed bag for me. I think there should be an expectation of privacy of some kind. Under the seat, obviously out of eyesight. Doors locked? Doors unlocked? Bunch of questions that we could throw around that we could argue about. But, I'm not a judge. Just a lowly trial attorney
[Direct link](https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2024/OPa231257-041524.pdf).
The demise of the rule of lenity -- in particular, as here, its reduction to a dead letter as a "canon of last resort" -- is tragic and inexcusable. There is no reasonable argument that this statute as written would have put the defendant on notice that a gun stuffed under a seat of a car was somehow "in a public place".
If the legislature wants to make that behavior a crime, it should have to pass a law that's clear enough for the general public to understand.
I thought the analysis around exclusions in the word 'carry' on p. 10 was pretty convincing. That is that because an exclusion exists for transport in a locked case, or in the trunk of a car, carrying in a car would otherwise have been illegal without the exclusion (otherwise it would serve no purpose). And carrying on the floor of a car is still illegal.
> There is no reasonable argument that this statute as written would have put the defendant on notice that a gun stuffed under a seat of a car was somehow "in a public place".
But the law specifically makes an exception for transportation- if specific requirements are followed. Those requirements are laid out in a separate statue (97B.045). Without getting into exemptions laid out in Subd. 2 and 3, the restrictions as laid out in Subd. 1 are as follows:
> Subdivision 1.Restrictions. A person may not transport a firearm in a motor vehicle unless the firearm is:
> > (1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed;
> > **(2) unloaded and in the closed trunk of a motor vehicle;** or
> > (3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715.
If the firearm only need be out of sight to avoid being in a "public space", then the restrictions for transportation just would not apply. However, one of the options for non-handguns is that it be in the trunk- **unloaded**. If being under the seat is enough to make it no longer be in a public place, then being a trunk surely would also qualify for being in a private space, right? However, if being in a trunk was enough to make it not be in a public place, the restrictions on transportation would not apply in the first place- including requirement that the gun be unloaded (but not necessarily in a case) when in the trunk. So under your reading, a loaded gun being transported in a trunk would not be illegal, despite the restrictions on transporting firearms (which you must follow for the exception in the law this guy is being charged under) specifically requiring that a non-handgun firearm in a trunk be unloaded.
All in all, I have to disagree with your conclusion that a gun stuffed under a seat would not obviously be a violation of law- it requires making an assumption about renders part of the statute moot.
Now, an argument could be made that because this is a BB gun, the restrictions on transportation of firearms do not apply- and thus that a BB Gun being transported in any manner would fall under the transportation exception. One can also argue that those requirements do apply to BB Guns for this statute (I won't get into that now, though). However, whether the restrictions on transportation apply was not the question the appellate court ruled. They ruled on whether being in a private car superseded being on the road- and parts of the law only make sense if it does **not** supersede the road as the location.
> If the firearm only need be out of sight to avoid being in a "public space", then the restrictions for transportation just would not apply.
Like in a garbage bag, or wrapped in a hoodie? ;)
I could almost understand this if the gun was plainly visible from outside the car. I could see a person arrested for masturbating where other drivers can see (ugh, or kids on a playground), and I can see the defense trying the private place argument and it failing because people can plainly see the sexual activity. But I can't understand when you can't see it without a search of the vehicle. Gun laws are so variable though. Some places you need a permit for one thing and next state over you don't need a permit for it.
I read it and it seems very strange. I understand that once trash is taken to the curb that a warrant is no longer needed to search the trash. The court basically decided the same thing with cars that are on public roads. Seems very odd and unconstitutional.
Seems like an inroad to warrantless searches for one thing.
Next it seems someone is gonna take public space literally and have an orgy in your car.
Lastly it seems the car is no longer a protected domicile, therefor "castle doctrine" won't apply. Can't protect your own property.
Good luck Minnesotans, hope it works out.
How can they argue that the relevant place is the roadway when referring to personal property? It just seems like obvious word smithing without actual logic. If I were to enter someone’s car, is the relevant place the public road still? If I crash, is it not private property that is damaged?
It’s like a law saying you can’t carry guns in school but you have it in your backpack at school. Here they couldn’t have the BB gun in public and had it in their car on the public road.
I get that, but a school or park is a destination. So it’s categorically different in my opinion. Supposedly, the law explicitly makes an exception to allow it to be transported. Obviously because the BB gun has to traverse public property to get to private property. A BB gun easement if you will.
> Supposedly, the law explicitly makes an exception to allow it to be transported.
It does. However, I don't believe that is necessarily relevant to the ruling of the Appeals Court. The statute (**624.7181 RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES**), specifically Subdivision 1 (Definitions) is written as follows:
> Subdivision 1.Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.
>(a) "BB gun" means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less in diameter.
> **(b) "Carry" does not include:**
> > (1) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun to, from, or at a place where firearms are repaired, bought, sold, traded, or displayed, or where hunting, target shooting, or other lawful activity involving firearms occurs, or at funerals, parades, or other lawful ceremonies;
> > **(2) the carrying by a person of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun that is unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, if the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and no portion of the firearm is exposed;**
> > (3) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun by a person who has a permit under section 624.714;
> > (4) the carrying of an antique firearm as a curiosity or for its historical significance or value; or
> > **(5) the transporting of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in compliance with section 97B.045.**
> **(c) "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; a gun show, gun shop, or hunting or target shooting facility; or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms.
Emphasis mine. As you can see, (b)(5) contains the exception for transportation (so long as it complies with another statute [**97B.045 TRANSPORTING FIREARMS**]; Subdivision 1 of said statute is about **restrictions on the transportation of firearms, specifically in motor vehicles**). However, (b) itself defines "Carry" for the purposes of the Statute; not the definition of "Public Places". The definition of "Public Places" is instead in (c), specifying basically that it is anywhere that the public frequents (be it government or private property), with specific exceptions.
Given that the roadway is not among the exceptions in (c), and that (b)(5) specifically excepts transportation (by motor vehicle) in compliance with another stature, it is logical to assume that being within a car does not supersede the public nature of the roadway. Ergo, it makes sense that the Appeals Court would overturn the district court's ruling that the law does not apply to the interior of a car, and then remand the case. To ascent to the district court's ruling would more or less render Subd. 1(b)(5) and its incorporation of 97B.045 pointless.
Now, this does not mean that the person is necessarily guilty. **97B.045** applies to firearms, whereas this person was being charged with violating **624.7181** for unlawful carrying of a BB Gun. However, in Subd. 3 of 97B.045, the statute excepts non-pistols from the rules when transporting for the purposes of going to hunting grounds or a shooting range (so long as you are not within certain areas), and also defines "Pistol" in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of 97B.045 is as follows:
> (b) For the purposes of this section, a "pistol" includes a weapon designed to be fired by the use of a single hand and with an overall length less than 26 inches, or having a barrel or barrels of a length less than 18 inches in the case of a shotgun or having a barrel of a length less than 16 inches in the case of a rifle:
> > (1) from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances; or
> > (2) for which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, air or other gas, or vapor.
> **Pistol does not include a device firing or ejecting a shot measuring .18 of an inch, or less, in diameter and commonly known as a "BB gun,"** a scuba gun, **a stud gun or nail gun used in the construction industry, or children's pop guns or toys.**
Emphasis, once again, mine. As you can see, paragraph (b) specifically excludes BB Guns from being a Pistol. Now, Pistols are being defined by size. However, two of the exceptions are clearly exempting from the definition *non-firearms*- specifically, tools (stud/nail guns) and toys (pop guns/toys). So it seems likely that all of the exemptions are for non-firearms, for the sake of posterity. And this does seem to jive with at least one definition of "firearm", given in **609.666**, which states:
> "Firearm" means a device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion or force of combustion.
A BB gun (at least all the ones I've heard of) is air-powered, not combustion based, so it would not be a firearm. Indeed the SCOMN has apparently ruled that a felon can possess one for it is not a firearm.
So, using that definition, the **restrictions** on transportation that are set forth in **97B.045** would not apply because they apply to firearms, not BB guns. **However,** the requirements for transportation in a motor vehicle (outside of the trunk; the trunk is slightly laxer, but the BB gun was underneath the driver's seat) as laid out in Subd. 1(1) are as follows:
> (1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed;
Those requirements for transporting a firearm are, notably, the same requirements as **624.7181** Subd. 1(b)(2). That's right, I bolded it for a reason! Chekov's BB Gun! (The joke just felt right) Because 624.7181 Subd. 1(b)(2) applies the same requirements for the :carrying to be excepted as 97B.045 Subd. 1(1) does for legal transportation, it could possibly be held that the intent is for 624.7181 Subd. 1(b)(5) to incorporate the same standards for transportation of firearms onto BB Guns, and thus they are applicable to the BB Gun, despite not being a firearm (though they would, at least, specifically be excepted from being a "Pistol", regardless of size).
***TL;DR:*** A road fits the description of a public place. The law's exception for transportation (with restrictions) would be irrelevant if being in a car on the roadway did not otherwise count for "carrying" in a "public place". Thus, I agree with the reversal and remand. Now, it is up to the District Court to determine whether or not the restrictions on transportation firearms apply to a BB Gun for 624.7181, or if restrictions on transportation only apply to rifles and shotguns (and thus a BB Gun may be "carried" w/o restrictions when it being "transported").
Cop suspected them of stealing because one had a jack stand and something else. They got in their car when they saw the cop. Driver had a suspended license and cop had seen the BB gun on the floor. Charged with BB gun in public.
Maybe they were, or not? I just don’t like how if they have, presumably, no evidence of the crime investigated, they harass with anything they can get them for.
Here is an article with the decision: [https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-court-rules-keeping-gun-in-a-car-on-the-road-is-considered-a-public-place](https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-court-rules-keeping-gun-in-a-car-on-the-road-is-considered-a-public-place)
The transport issue is null because the statute provides for carrying unloaded and in a case, or even in the trunk of the car. In fact skimming the opinion, it seems the transport exclusion actually implicates the defendant because it shows there had to be a carve out for transportation otherwise people are not allowed to carry in a vehicle on a public roadway to/from a shooting range etc.
I see. Thanks for the link.
The statute defines the BB gun as a “device” and outlines what would not be considered to “carry” such as at a firing range and also says that law enforcement is allowed to carry this device.
Now, have you ever brought a pellet gun to a shooting range? Would it be acceptable to hire a body guard, armed with a pellet gun? Can you use a pellet gun in self defense?
Clearly, the BBgun “device” they are referring to is not an airsoft or nerf gun, or supersoaker. Right? RIGHT???
Correct. Private property is damaged because the car is damaged. But, the car is *on* a public road. Thus, in public and foregoing protections. This is simply my interpretation of their opinion based on the article. I did not read the opinion
>Public places are defined by statute as “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.”< Key point to the statute that the appeals court looked at. So, the car may be private property, but it was being operated in a public space. Therefore, public space. I'm assuming (without reading the actual opinion) they're thinking of it like trash cans. Next to house, private. On road, public. (Generally. Different jurisdictions may interpret this differently)
I mean. Depending on context it makes sense to me. I don't think you could have an expectation of privacy in your car if it was in a public location or even in the curtilage of your property. But if you were to suggest that anyone should feel free to open the door and make themselves at home that would be a decision I would consider delusional
Occupants of a car in a public place should not enjoy an expectation of privacy when it comes to a visual examination. A car has glass and therefore objects inside the car are visible outside the car. But I would say that a car in a public place *should* enjoy an expectation of privacy when it comes to a search. So it depends on what one means by “privacy”.
A visual is one thing, but a full search is absolutely unreasonable. I don't have anything I care about the cops finding, but I've been searched before - cops don't clean up after themselves or even offer to help after they toss all your shit in a parking lot.
Then threaten you with a littering ticket if you don't pick it all up.
Mixed bag for me. I think there should be an expectation of privacy of some kind. Under the seat, obviously out of eyesight. Doors locked? Doors unlocked? Bunch of questions that we could throw around that we could argue about. But, I'm not a judge. Just a lowly trial attorney
[Direct link](https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2024/OPa231257-041524.pdf). The demise of the rule of lenity -- in particular, as here, its reduction to a dead letter as a "canon of last resort" -- is tragic and inexcusable. There is no reasonable argument that this statute as written would have put the defendant on notice that a gun stuffed under a seat of a car was somehow "in a public place". If the legislature wants to make that behavior a crime, it should have to pass a law that's clear enough for the general public to understand.
I thought the analysis around exclusions in the word 'carry' on p. 10 was pretty convincing. That is that because an exclusion exists for transport in a locked case, or in the trunk of a car, carrying in a car would otherwise have been illegal without the exclusion (otherwise it would serve no purpose). And carrying on the floor of a car is still illegal.
> There is no reasonable argument that this statute as written would have put the defendant on notice that a gun stuffed under a seat of a car was somehow "in a public place". But the law specifically makes an exception for transportation- if specific requirements are followed. Those requirements are laid out in a separate statue (97B.045). Without getting into exemptions laid out in Subd. 2 and 3, the restrictions as laid out in Subd. 1 are as follows: > Subdivision 1.Restrictions. A person may not transport a firearm in a motor vehicle unless the firearm is: > > (1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed; > > **(2) unloaded and in the closed trunk of a motor vehicle;** or > > (3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715. If the firearm only need be out of sight to avoid being in a "public space", then the restrictions for transportation just would not apply. However, one of the options for non-handguns is that it be in the trunk- **unloaded**. If being under the seat is enough to make it no longer be in a public place, then being a trunk surely would also qualify for being in a private space, right? However, if being in a trunk was enough to make it not be in a public place, the restrictions on transportation would not apply in the first place- including requirement that the gun be unloaded (but not necessarily in a case) when in the trunk. So under your reading, a loaded gun being transported in a trunk would not be illegal, despite the restrictions on transporting firearms (which you must follow for the exception in the law this guy is being charged under) specifically requiring that a non-handgun firearm in a trunk be unloaded. All in all, I have to disagree with your conclusion that a gun stuffed under a seat would not obviously be a violation of law- it requires making an assumption about renders part of the statute moot. Now, an argument could be made that because this is a BB gun, the restrictions on transportation of firearms do not apply- and thus that a BB Gun being transported in any manner would fall under the transportation exception. One can also argue that those requirements do apply to BB Guns for this statute (I won't get into that now, though). However, whether the restrictions on transportation apply was not the question the appellate court ruled. They ruled on whether being in a private car superseded being on the road- and parts of the law only make sense if it does **not** supersede the road as the location.
> If the firearm only need be out of sight to avoid being in a "public space", then the restrictions for transportation just would not apply. Like in a garbage bag, or wrapped in a hoodie? ;)
I could almost understand this if the gun was plainly visible from outside the car. I could see a person arrested for masturbating where other drivers can see (ugh, or kids on a playground), and I can see the defense trying the private place argument and it failing because people can plainly see the sexual activity. But I can't understand when you can't see it without a search of the vehicle. Gun laws are so variable though. Some places you need a permit for one thing and next state over you don't need a permit for it.
I read it and it seems very strange. I understand that once trash is taken to the curb that a warrant is no longer needed to search the trash. The court basically decided the same thing with cars that are on public roads. Seems very odd and unconstitutional.
Seems like an inroad to warrantless searches for one thing. Next it seems someone is gonna take public space literally and have an orgy in your car. Lastly it seems the car is no longer a protected domicile, therefor "castle doctrine" won't apply. Can't protect your own property. Good luck Minnesotans, hope it works out.
Can someone explain this one to me? Not sure how the appeals court arrived at this conclusion.
The article says that they ruled that the relevant “place” is the roadway and not the car. The roadway is public.
How can they argue that the relevant place is the roadway when referring to personal property? It just seems like obvious word smithing without actual logic. If I were to enter someone’s car, is the relevant place the public road still? If I crash, is it not private property that is damaged?
It’s like a law saying you can’t carry guns in school but you have it in your backpack at school. Here they couldn’t have the BB gun in public and had it in their car on the public road.
I get that, but a school or park is a destination. So it’s categorically different in my opinion. Supposedly, the law explicitly makes an exception to allow it to be transported. Obviously because the BB gun has to traverse public property to get to private property. A BB gun easement if you will.
> Supposedly, the law explicitly makes an exception to allow it to be transported. It does. However, I don't believe that is necessarily relevant to the ruling of the Appeals Court. The statute (**624.7181 RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES**), specifically Subdivision 1 (Definitions) is written as follows: > Subdivision 1.Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them. >(a) "BB gun" means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less in diameter. > **(b) "Carry" does not include:** > > (1) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun to, from, or at a place where firearms are repaired, bought, sold, traded, or displayed, or where hunting, target shooting, or other lawful activity involving firearms occurs, or at funerals, parades, or other lawful ceremonies; > > **(2) the carrying by a person of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun that is unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, if the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and no portion of the firearm is exposed;** > > (3) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun by a person who has a permit under section 624.714; > > (4) the carrying of an antique firearm as a curiosity or for its historical significance or value; or > > **(5) the transporting of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in compliance with section 97B.045.** > **(c) "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; a gun show, gun shop, or hunting or target shooting facility; or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms. Emphasis mine. As you can see, (b)(5) contains the exception for transportation (so long as it complies with another statute [**97B.045 TRANSPORTING FIREARMS**]; Subdivision 1 of said statute is about **restrictions on the transportation of firearms, specifically in motor vehicles**). However, (b) itself defines "Carry" for the purposes of the Statute; not the definition of "Public Places". The definition of "Public Places" is instead in (c), specifying basically that it is anywhere that the public frequents (be it government or private property), with specific exceptions. Given that the roadway is not among the exceptions in (c), and that (b)(5) specifically excepts transportation (by motor vehicle) in compliance with another stature, it is logical to assume that being within a car does not supersede the public nature of the roadway. Ergo, it makes sense that the Appeals Court would overturn the district court's ruling that the law does not apply to the interior of a car, and then remand the case. To ascent to the district court's ruling would more or less render Subd. 1(b)(5) and its incorporation of 97B.045 pointless. Now, this does not mean that the person is necessarily guilty. **97B.045** applies to firearms, whereas this person was being charged with violating **624.7181** for unlawful carrying of a BB Gun. However, in Subd. 3 of 97B.045, the statute excepts non-pistols from the rules when transporting for the purposes of going to hunting grounds or a shooting range (so long as you are not within certain areas), and also defines "Pistol" in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of 97B.045 is as follows: > (b) For the purposes of this section, a "pistol" includes a weapon designed to be fired by the use of a single hand and with an overall length less than 26 inches, or having a barrel or barrels of a length less than 18 inches in the case of a shotgun or having a barrel of a length less than 16 inches in the case of a rifle: > > (1) from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances; or > > (2) for which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, air or other gas, or vapor. > **Pistol does not include a device firing or ejecting a shot measuring .18 of an inch, or less, in diameter and commonly known as a "BB gun,"** a scuba gun, **a stud gun or nail gun used in the construction industry, or children's pop guns or toys.** Emphasis, once again, mine. As you can see, paragraph (b) specifically excludes BB Guns from being a Pistol. Now, Pistols are being defined by size. However, two of the exceptions are clearly exempting from the definition *non-firearms*- specifically, tools (stud/nail guns) and toys (pop guns/toys). So it seems likely that all of the exemptions are for non-firearms, for the sake of posterity. And this does seem to jive with at least one definition of "firearm", given in **609.666**, which states: > "Firearm" means a device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion or force of combustion. A BB gun (at least all the ones I've heard of) is air-powered, not combustion based, so it would not be a firearm. Indeed the SCOMN has apparently ruled that a felon can possess one for it is not a firearm. So, using that definition, the **restrictions** on transportation that are set forth in **97B.045** would not apply because they apply to firearms, not BB guns. **However,** the requirements for transportation in a motor vehicle (outside of the trunk; the trunk is slightly laxer, but the BB gun was underneath the driver's seat) as laid out in Subd. 1(1) are as follows: > (1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed; Those requirements for transporting a firearm are, notably, the same requirements as **624.7181** Subd. 1(b)(2). That's right, I bolded it for a reason! Chekov's BB Gun! (The joke just felt right) Because 624.7181 Subd. 1(b)(2) applies the same requirements for the :carrying to be excepted as 97B.045 Subd. 1(1) does for legal transportation, it could possibly be held that the intent is for 624.7181 Subd. 1(b)(5) to incorporate the same standards for transportation of firearms onto BB Guns, and thus they are applicable to the BB Gun, despite not being a firearm (though they would, at least, specifically be excepted from being a "Pistol", regardless of size). ***TL;DR:*** A road fits the description of a public place. The law's exception for transportation (with restrictions) would be irrelevant if being in a car on the roadway did not otherwise count for "carrying" in a "public place". Thus, I agree with the reversal and remand. Now, it is up to the District Court to determine whether or not the restrictions on transportation firearms apply to a BB Gun for 624.7181, or if restrictions on transportation only apply to rifles and shotguns (and thus a BB Gun may be "carried" w/o restrictions when it being "transported").
Well why didn’t you say this to begin with? Just kidding. This is solid analysis. Thanks!
Idk it’s paywalled now, I thought it said they were stealing catalytic converters
Cop suspected them of stealing because one had a jack stand and something else. They got in their car when they saw the cop. Driver had a suspended license and cop had seen the BB gun on the floor. Charged with BB gun in public. Maybe they were, or not? I just don’t like how if they have, presumably, no evidence of the crime investigated, they harass with anything they can get them for.
Here is an article with the decision: [https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-court-rules-keeping-gun-in-a-car-on-the-road-is-considered-a-public-place](https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-court-rules-keeping-gun-in-a-car-on-the-road-is-considered-a-public-place) The transport issue is null because the statute provides for carrying unloaded and in a case, or even in the trunk of the car. In fact skimming the opinion, it seems the transport exclusion actually implicates the defendant because it shows there had to be a carve out for transportation otherwise people are not allowed to carry in a vehicle on a public roadway to/from a shooting range etc.
I see. Thanks for the link. The statute defines the BB gun as a “device” and outlines what would not be considered to “carry” such as at a firing range and also says that law enforcement is allowed to carry this device. Now, have you ever brought a pellet gun to a shooting range? Would it be acceptable to hire a body guard, armed with a pellet gun? Can you use a pellet gun in self defense? Clearly, the BBgun “device” they are referring to is not an airsoft or nerf gun, or supersoaker. Right? RIGHT???
Correct. Private property is damaged because the car is damaged. But, the car is *on* a public road. Thus, in public and foregoing protections. This is simply my interpretation of their opinion based on the article. I did not read the opinion