A permit holder was arrested today in St. Cloud area. Perhaps more details will emerge but it looks like they are saying "terroristic threats". While there is no brandishing law in MN (that I am aware of) they seem to be trying to get there through the back door. I wonder what the facts will show if they ever come out.

Here's the article that was posted in the St. Cloud Times. http://www.sctimes.com/article/20081117/NEWS01/111170049

Show of hands. Is DGU while in a car ever worth it?

(By the way, welcome to the forum.)

Oh boy, I know the type.

Wasn't me, my yellow toy is away for the winter.

"Permit for the gun"?

We have heard this before. Going from the history of the reporters "reporting" in this sort of thing it may very well mean he had a permit to purchase.

As expected the details are a little vague.

I'm witholding judgement until "displayed" is clarified a bit more; of course, he's already been convicted by the media...

Purchase permit would be my guess as well, just based on how it is phrased.

"Displayed a gun" is troubling. Pointing at them would be assault W/ . . . . my guess is that they are using the Terroristic Threats angle to give dude a prohibiting violation on his record. That crime really needs to be taken off the books, if they can't use it right. It was written for things like bomb threats & they are using it as felony offensive language which is just wrong on so many levels.

I'd like to know what the 20 somethings did to get a look at a gun.

Ok, Who had this wacko in their carry class?? Do you rember him by chance?

The current theory is he had a 'permit to purchase' - the article is very light on details. Then again, the media would do that intentionally...

Take it easy, Jim.

Imagine this scenario: JimC gets back in his yellow pickup after dropping off some hunting safety class fliers at a local elementary school. He drives away. A mile or so down the road, Jim remembers he disarmed to go into the school. At the next stoplight, Jim opens the glove box safe where his gun is waiting. As he tries to grasp the gun, he clumsily knocks it onto the floorboards just as the light turns green. Rather than grope around on the floor for the gun, Jim decides to wait until he can stop and see the gun properly, so he drives on.

A van pulled up next to Jim during this unfortunate clumsiness. The occupants see a gun and decide Jim must be threatening them. They call 911, their unreasonable fear coloring the report. The police arrest Jim and charge him with terroristic threats.

The next day, the newspaper prints a short description of the incident, which gives an incomplete picture of the event. People prepare their pitchforks, torches, bags of feathers and cauldrons of tar.

There simply isn't enough information from the story to come to any kind of judgment. While I'm sure that the 20 year old couple was probably on their way to church bingo after dropping of blankets for the homeless, Maybe the "permit" holder misunderstood the young gentleman's aggressive driving as a threat, not understanding that being tailgated at high speeds, flipped off, and screamed at was just the young mans way of hurrying to church.

I believe that we should all await the full story rather than spend time writing fiction.

You're amazing! That happened to me in 2006!!

To this day I bet you cringe when you see feathers.

Yeah, he was in the back with a 12 pack of Busch light and quart of Old Grandad.