Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:30 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.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Court decision in Duluth 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:53 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 367
Location: Forest Lake, MN
If the guy would've just kept his mouth shut, none of this would've happened.

Legal or not, this was very stupid on his part. One should NEVER carry while drunk, I don't care where you are.

_________________
Pork Chop Sandwiches!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:08 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:09 am
Posts: 983
Location: Brewster
One should never be drunk. How can you be drunk and be in condition yellow? That said I do not advocate locking up people for being drunk.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Court Decision In Duluth
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:33 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6
I know this statute pertains to Rifles and Shotguns but I do not think the "Public Places" would have a different definition for handguns.

624.7181 RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES.
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Court Decision In Duluth
PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:32 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
G3Man wrote:
I know this statute pertains to Rifles and Shotguns but I do not think the "Public Places" would have a different definition for handguns.


As a matter of fact, the carry law uses that exact piece of legislation to define "public place."


624.714 wrote:
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. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time is guilty of a felony.


But more importantly, in the carry law:

Quote:
Subd. 9.Carrying pistols about one's premises or for purposes of repair, target practice.

A permit to carry is not required of a person:

(1) to keep or carry about the person's place of business, dwelling house, premises or on land possessed by the person a pistol;

_________________
* 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:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:30 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am
Posts: 702
Location: St. Paulish
Update:

Quote:
Duluth tries again on gun charge against NorShor strip club owner
3/10/09
story link

The Minnesota Court of Appeals will decide within the next 90 days whether a Duluth judge erred when he dismissed a charge of carrying a pistol while intoxicated that had been filed against the owner of a Duluth nightclub.

Duluth defense attorney Richard Holmstrom and Assistant City Attorney Terri Lehr argued their cases before a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

James Gradishar, owner of the NorShor Experience strip club in downtown Duluth, was charged with the misdemeanor crime of carrying a pistol under the influence of alcohol. The statute prohibits carrying a pistol while in a “public place’’ if the carrier is intoxicated.

State District Judge Eric Hylden threw out the case in October after Holmstrom filed a motion to dismiss the charge partly because of the term “public place’’ as used in section 624.7142 of Minnesota Law. The statute regulating carrying a pistol while intoxicated doesn’t define “public place.’’

The defense argued that the court should adopt the definition of “public place’’ found in a different section, 624.7181, which prohibits carrying rifles or shotguns in public places, regardless of intoxication. There are several exceptions under that statute, including the right of an individual to carry a weapon in a place of business he or she owns. Holmstrom argued that Gradishar was in his place of business.

Lehr argued there are no exceptions to the law relating to the carrying of handguns while intoxicated. She said it would be absurd for an intoxicated person to lawfully carry a concealed pistol while at gun show, while hunting or at a target-shooting facility — all places a gun can be carried, while sober, under 624.7181. She said Hylden’s decision “frustrates legislative intent and produces an absurd result.’’

“A bar owner who gets intoxicated in his own bar while carrying a concealed pistol is no less a danger to public safety than an intoxicated patron who is carrying a concealed pistol by authority of a valid permit to carry,’’ Lehr said.

In his order dismissing the case, Hylden had written: “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.”

Tuesday’s oral arguments were heard by Court of Appeals Judges Natalie Hudson, Michelle Larkin and Renee Worke, who were in their Judicial Center Courtroom in St. Paul while the attorneys presented their cases by interactive video from a St. Louis County courtroom in Duluth.

From November through March, interactive video is used for the convenience of both judges and counsel, to reduce travel during winter weather.

Police said 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 blood-alcohol concentration was measured at 0.15 percent, 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.

Holmstrom said the intent of the Legislature in writing the law was to enforce the Second Amendment and an individual’s right to carry a firearm. “That right shall only be restrained in the most extreme cases,’’ he said.

Gradishar attended the hearing but declined comment afterwards.

Since the case was dismissed by the court, state law requires the city to reimburse Holmstrom for reasonable legal fees and expenses for the appeal. The defense attorney said he has submitted a legal bill of $3,996.59 to the city.

_________________
Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters.
"If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14)
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:19 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Quote:
Since the case was dismissed by the court, state law requires the city to reimburse Holmstrom for reasonable legal fees and expenses for the appeal. The defense attorney said he has submitted a legal bill of $3,996.59 to the city.
:D

_________________
* 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:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:06 pm 
Member

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:04 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Plymouth, Minnesota
Court of Appeals held today that:

Quote:
For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 624.7142, which prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in a public place while under the influence of alcohol, “public place” includes an individual’s place of business if the public have access to the place of business.


http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/ ... 4-0602.pdf


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:39 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
Which pretty much guts the exception, doesn't it? :evil:

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:56 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
It's the sort of ruling I would expect from people who have always worked for someone else and don't have an understanding of the sanctity of entrepreneurship.

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


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:04 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
CustomEclipseII wrote:
Court of Appeals held today that:

Quote:
For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 624.7142, which prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in a public place while under the influence of alcohol, “public place” includes an individual’s place of business if the public have access to the place of business.


http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/ ... 4-0602.pdf


That's just the summary. The actual opinion(IANAL) is worse.

Quote:
For purposes of section 624.7142, we conclude that “public place” shall be defined as: generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not


By this definition there is no such thing as a private place, for purposes of 624.7142.

_________________
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:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:34 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
This fucking pisses me off to no end.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:17 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
Alcohol, It will get you everytime. One way or another :(


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:21 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Image

and now...

Image


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:55 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
What is the next step for this case?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:56 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
SultanOfBrunei wrote:
What is the next step for this case?

Let's sit down and have a few drinks and discuss it?

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


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 Previous  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 29 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