I know this statute pertains to Rifles and Shotguns but I do not think the "Public Places" would have a different definition for handguns.

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.

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;

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.

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.

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.

Court of Appeals held today that:



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

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

What is the next step for this case?