Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:41 pm

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.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Court decision in Duluth 
Author Message
 Post subject: Court decision in Duluth
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:44 pm 
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Duluth Area
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... roup/News/



Gun charge against strip club owner dismissed
A judge has dismissed a criminal charge against a downtown Duluth strip club owner accused of illegally carrying a pistol while intoxicated in his own club.
By: By Mark Stodghill , Duluth News Tribune
A judge has dismissed a criminal charge against a downtown Duluth strip club owner accused of illegally carrying a pistol while intoxicated in his own club.
Police said James Gradishar, 46, was intoxicated when he admitted to a Duluth police officer, who was working at the NorShor Experience strip club while off-duty, that he was carrying a loaded .22 revolver. His alcohol concentration was measured at 0.15, almost double the legal limit to drive. He was charged May 2.
Gradishar has a permit to carry the gun under Minnesota’s Citizen’s Personal Protection Act. He told police he was carrying the gun while dealing with his “money business,’’ then forgot that he had it in his pocket.
The statute he was charged under reads that a “person may not carry a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person in a public place … when the person is under the influence of alcohol.’’
Duluth defense attorney Richard Holmstrom argued in August that the charge should be dismissed because “public place,’’ as defined in one Minnesota gun statute, excludes a place of business owned or managed by a person.
Assistant City Attorney Terri Lehr argued that the statute Holmstrom referred to governs rifles and shotguns, not handguns. She said it is never legal to carry a firearm in a “public place’’ under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
There is no case law interpreting the statute in question.
In a memorandum to his order dismissing the charge, 6th Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden wrote that he made an extensive review of the legislative history of the bill that permitted the carrying of handguns. He was unable to find any discussion concerning how the phrase “public place’’ was meant to be defined.
“The court did consider why ‘place of business’ is an exception to the general rule of what constitutes a public place,’’ Hylden wrote. “It seems that the Legislature has always considered a place of business, like one’s home, a location where the protection of a handgun was warranted.”
“It’s kind of how I thought it would turn out,’’ Gradishar said Thursday.
City Attorney Gunnar Johnson said no decision has been made on whether to appeal the court’s ruling.

_________________
Have a great day unless you made other plans!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:51 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Good outcome. It sounds like the city attorneys need to re-read *all* the laws.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:34 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
It pains me that so many Minnesota lawyers aren't capable of reading the English language or of appreciating that the sections of a single statutory amendment ought to be construed together. The court's decision is exactly correct.

The MCPPA of 2003 provides:
Quote:
624.714 CARRYING OF WEAPONS WITHOUT PERMIT; PENALTIES.
Subdivision 1.[Repealed, 2003 c 28 art 2 s 35; 2005 c 83 s 1]
Subd. 1a. Permit required; penalty. A person, other than a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person's clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place, as defined in section 624.7181, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. * * *

and, the MCPPA of 2003 further provides (adopted at the same time as part of the same amendment)
Quote:
624.7142 CARRYING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
Subdivision 1. Acts prohibited. A person may not carry a pistol on or about the person's clothes or person in a public place:
* * *
(4) when the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(5) when the person's alcohol concentration is 0.10 or more; or
* * *


The above cited definition is in this section.

Quote:
624.7181 RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. * * * the following terms have the
meanings given them.
* * *
(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.


He needs to sue for malicious prosecution.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:11 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 80
I'm not an attorney and I think I could have defended him in this case. Is it a bad decision to carry while intoxicated at one's business, sure. Is it legal, absolutely.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:20 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
It shouldn't be legal to carry if intoxicated. Talk about accidents waiting to happen. Would you want to be around a drunk who has a gun? :shock: I sure wouldn't.
Look at the stupid things drunks do when they don't have a gun!

ALCOHOL & GUNS DON'T MIX, ANYWHERE< ANYTIME!!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:51 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 373
JimC wrote:
ALCOHOL & GUNS DON'T MIX, ANYWHERE< ANYTIME!![/size][/color]


I don't agree, but overall agree. Drinking alcohol can impair your judgment and motor skills which can lead to accidents and mistakes. Regardless, everyone is responsible for their own actions and the inebriation they expose themselves to.

I've had two beers today and handled a firearm... I guess I've broken the horrible no alcohol rule even though I can get in a 3000lb car and drive it legally.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:48 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
JimC wrote:
It shouldn't be legal to carry if intoxicated. Talk about accidents waiting to happen. Would you want to be around a drunk who has a gun? :shock: I sure wouldn't.
Look at the stupid things drunks do when they don't have a gun!

ALCOHOL & GUNS DON'T MIX, ANYWHERE< ANYTIME!!


Sure. But but do we need a special law about it? How about a law saying drunks are not allowed to do any stupid thing? That would cover it all. :roll:

Probably half of the drunks in the US own guns and get drunk several times a week. Maybe they should store their guns at the police department before they start drinking.

Or, people that choose to own guns could be banned from the possession and use of alcohol. We could make a bunch of new laws about that.

Before we make a law, we should determine whether the law will have any effect on behavior.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:42 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:01 am
Posts: 586
Location: west suburb
gyrfalcon wrote:
JimC wrote:
ALCOHOL & GUNS DON'T MIX, ANYWHERE< ANYTIME!![/size][/color]


I don't agree, but overall agree. Drinking alcohol can impair your judgment and motor skills which can lead to accidents and mistakes. Regardless, everyone is responsible for their own actions and the inebriation they expose themselves to.

I've had two beers today and handled a firearm... I guess I've broken the horrible no alcohol rule even though I can get in a 3000lb car and drive it legally.

My question to you is, can you be sure you are within the .04 legal limit after you have had two beers. I do realize that you did not state that you were carrying when you got into your 3000 lb car and drove.
Do folks carry after one mixed drink but not after two, how about after four beers but never after five. I'm just curious as to when someone feels they are above the limit to carry.

_________________
Just because you know your paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not out to get you.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:52 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
if intoxicated







gyrfalcon wrote:
JimC wrote:
ALCOHOL & GUNS DON'T MIX, ANYWHERE< ANYTIME!![/size][/color]


I don't agree, but overall agree. Drinking alcohol can impair your judgment and motor skills which can lead to accidents and mistakes. Regardless, everyone is responsible for their own actions and the inebriation they expose themselves to.

I've had two beers today and handled a firearm... I guess I've broken the horrible no alcohol rule even though I can get in a 3000lb car and drive it legally.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:59 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
Many had the same lame excuses when DWI laws were made stronger.
Is it a cure all? No, Will it make gun owners realize their responsibility as time goes on? Yes. Will it weed out the abusers? yes
Will it save lives over time? Of course.
No different than driving while drunk. A drunk with a gun threatens everyone around them, just like a drunk driving a car.
This is a no brainer, how can you defend and justify someone who is drunk carrying a gun? :roll:




Dick Unger wrote:
JimC wrote:
It shouldn't be legal to carry if intoxicated. Talk about accidents waiting to happen. Would you want to be around a drunk who has a gun? :shock: I sure wouldn't.
Look at the stupid things drunks do when they don't have a gun!

ALCOHOL & GUNS DON'T MIX, ANYWHERE< ANYTIME!!


Sure. But but do we need a special law about it? How about a law saying drunks are not allowed to do any stupid thing? That would cover it all. :roll:

Probably half of the drunks in the US own guns and get drunk several times a week. Maybe they should store their guns at the police department before they start drinking.

Or, people that choose to own guns could be banned from the possession and use of alcohol. We could make a bunch of new laws about that.

Before we make a law, we should determine whether the law will have any effect on behavior.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:06 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
I think there's at least a decent argument that the law should be changed so that the "public place" would include the business owned by the person, if it's open to the, well, public.

But that's not what the law is. As I recall, there's some document or other that makes ex post facto laws unsomethingorother.

That doesn't mean that the guy did a good thing, or didn't do a bad thing; it does mean that he clearly didn't commit a crime, and that he should not have been prosecuted in the first place, and that the court was right to dismiss the charges.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:09 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
JimC wrote:
Many had the same lame excuses when DWI laws were made stronger.
Is it a cure all? No, Will it make gun owners realize their responsibility as time goes on? Yes. Will it weed out the abusers? yes
Will it save lives over time? Of course.
I think you skipped a few steps there. Well, lots of them. Is there any reason to believe that the "stronger" DWI laws have saved lives? I know that they make some people feel better, but that's another issue.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:02 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Can anyone imagine this hypothetical resulting in charges?

Quote:
Officer John Doe, 46, was intoxicated when he admitted to another Duluth police officer, as they were working at the NorShor Experience strip club while off-duty, that he was carrying a loaded .38 revolver."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:04 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
I know dozens and dozens of people who think twice before drinking and driving with the tougher laws. The results of getting a DWI is on almost everyones mind now days.
Also friends aren't letting people drink and drive like they used to. People throwing parties are looking out for their guest like never before. New years Eve has seen big drops in drinking. That alone saves lives
. I know reasturant & bar owners who seen a huge drop in heavy drinking.
I can say for fact that the tougher laws have saved lives


joelr wrote:
JimC wrote:
Many had the same lame excuses when DWI laws were made stronger.
Is it a cure all? No, Will it make gun owners realize their responsibility as time goes on? Yes. Will it weed out the abusers? yes
Will it save lives over time? Of course.
I think you skipped a few steps there. Well, lots of them. Is there any reason to believe that the "stronger" DWI laws have saved lives? I know that they make some people feel better, but that's another issue.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:37 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
JimC wrote:
I know dozens and dozens of people who think twice before drinking and driving with the tougher laws. The results of getting a DWI is on almost everyones mind now days.
Also friends aren't letting people drink and drive like they used to. People throwing parties are looking out for their guest like never before. New years Eve has seen big drops in drinking. That alone saves lives
. I know reasturant & bar owners who seen a huge drop in heavy drinking.
I can say for fact that the tougher laws have saved lives
Well, you can state that as an opinion, sure; some folks are of the opinion that gun control laws save lives, too, and can also produce lots of anecdotes.

What nobody seems to be able to produce are, well, reliable numbers that prove that.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  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 26 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