| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
| long gun carry? http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12001 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | fastrak [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | long gun carry? |
I know you can carry any firearm you are legal to own. But I had a DNR tell me that you can not carry a long gun in a vehicle. He told me that we can walk downtown with a long gun loaded but have to unload and case if you get in your vehicle. Does anyone know anything diffrent? 
|
|
| Author: | DeanC [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds like he got it right. You may legally carry an uncased and loaded long gun if you have a MN permit to carry, but you cannot transport one via motor vehicle. Kind of surprising that he knew that, most LEO's do not, which is why most people do not advise carrying a long gun in public. To coin a phrase, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. |
|
| Author: | plblark [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The transport law specifically allows handguns. While your permit makes the carry of a longarm legal, the Transport statutes do not exempt longarms and thus they will be applied and enforced according to the DNR. this wasn't covered in your carry class? |
|
| Author: | Sietch [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heh. I like your avatar. |
|
| Author: | Andrew Rothman [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dean and Paul might be wrong. This is untested law, and a reading of the law according to the canons would suggest that 624.7181, a criminal statute, takes precedence over 97B, a hunting statute; that "carry" in a public place, in 624.7181, absent a definition in that section, takes its usual and ordinary meaning -- to have on or about one's person. The thing is, the cops' interpretation has been adopted by the DNR and the AG's office, so if you want to find out if they are right (I suspect they aren't), it'll likely cost you. Some guy or another, with a book and a forum, said something about test cases being for other people.... 
|
|
| Author: | plblark [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I hedged quickly with applied and enforced ... |
|
| Author: | motoman [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Construction |
97A.021 CONSTRUCTION. Subdivision 1.Code of Criminal Procedure.A provision of the game and fish laws that is inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure or of penal law is only effective under the game and fish laws. I can't see how driving around the metro with a loaded AR15 has anything to do with fish and game laws??? https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=97A.021 |
|
| Author: | JimC [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Funny how something like this situation wasn't spelled out better in the carry law. We shouldn't have to debate what the law reads, It should be spelled out clearly so we don't need "Test cases" |
|
| Author: | KonaSeven [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
plblark wrote: this wasn't covered in your carry class? 
|
|
| Author: | Greg [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does this mean that I can't put my beltfed Browning in a ring mount above my sunroof? Rats! 
|
|
| Author: | plblark [ Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Roll your eyes all you want. If he was being taught something new about carry by a DNR officer, something has been missed. Perhaps I should have said: What did your instructor say when you e-mailed him about it? It's a quick but specific section in my classes for a reason. I cover it tight along with hunting with a handgun and bow hunting bear. I mention the definition of a motor vehicle. It's quick but specific because I have friends and neighbors who originally got their permits for hunting purposes and I'd hate to see them inconvenienced over a technicality. |
|
| Author: | Q_Continuum [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Greg wrote: Does this mean that I can't put my beltfed Browning in a ring mount above my sunroof? Rats! Well, is it unloaded and in a 'locked container?' If so, I think it would count. (The fact that the 'locked container' is a two-piece clamshell cover, and the Browning 'sits' in a quasi-mount is immaterial) Then again, this is 5AM talk, and I ain't no lawyer. It WOULD be hilarious, though! |
|
| Author: | cobb [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
plblark wrote: Roll your eyes all you want. If he was being taught something new about carry by a DNR officer, something has been missed............... It's a quick but specific section in my classes for a reason. I cover it tight along with hunting with a handgun and bow hunting bear. I mention the definition of a motor vehicle. It's quick but specific because I have friends and neighbors who originally got their permits for hunting purposes and I'd hate to see them inconvenienced over a technicality. OK, I'll add one too.
The reason I do is based on the following two incidents and not targeting you pblark, well maybe a little. 
I had a student that at the end of my class commented that we had not covered anything on ammunition, even though it was in the video we watched, I had discussed it and he was the one that jumped ahead in my lesson plan and asked what was meant by frangible. So he saw it in a video, I explained it in class and he even asked questions about the topic and then couldn't remember we even covered it? When I mentioned this, he got kinda a blank stare and said, "oh ya". Just lately I talked to a student, not mine, that had gone through a Minnesota permit to carry class given by another instructor and he did not know what I would consider basics that should be covered in a class. After I answered his questions and we had a short discussion about some other carry information such as renewal info which he said was not covered. Later I just had to ask who he had taken his class from and his answer actually made my jaw drop, I mean I was really actually surprised. So for you that like to comment on what may not have been covered in another class and you consider it a basic which of course you cover in your class, maybe it wasn't. I cover a lot of material that some instructors think is not necessary, but that may be because they are not experianced in these areas to do so. I also do not cover cleaning a firearm in my Minnesota permit to carry class, I focus on the carry mechanics and legal, after all it is a Minnesota permit class and not a handgun basic class. 
Note: Don't bother asking, I will not post who this student took his class from. |
|
| Author: | joelr [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, your call as to what you do or don't say; me, I'm curious, and wouldn't necessarily think less of an instructor if somebody missed something. When I repeatedly see the same questions on what I think is important stuff coming from a given instructors' students (say, what to do after taking the gun out for serious; lawyers' numbers; the runup to an appeal; legal issues around concealment in MN, etc.) or hear about incredibly long digressions (NIBIN, bowling balls, politics) I do draw some conclusions. |
|
| Author: | Madcap_Magician [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was told in my class that the purpose of the hunting regulation was to stop poaching from vehicles and that my permit did not exempt me from adherence to that law. I can't think of a time where you'd need a loaded long gun in your vehicle that you wouldn't be able to load a ready magazine or shells, but I admit I haven't been thinking about that possibility for very long. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|