Author |
Message |
proctorflash
|
Post subject: Court decision in Duluth Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:44 pm |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:51 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:34 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
teamgreen02
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:11 pm |
|
Journeyman Member |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:20 pm |
|
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? 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!!
|
|
|
|
|
gyrfalcon
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:51 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:48 am |
|
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? 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
MNBud
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:42 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:52 am |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:59 am |
|
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?
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? 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:06 am |
|
The Man |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:09 am |
|
The Man |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:02 am |
|
Wise Elder |
|
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."
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:04 pm |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:37 pm |
|
The Man |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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
|