Just a l'il bit

Some times that's not a bad thing

One of the friendly lawyers who hangs out in these parts says it best during his presentation to carry classes...

"What's the correct answer to any legal question?"

[students mumble and shrug shoulders]

"Two little words. It depends."

Whoever said that is my hero. (But he totally ripped it from former Justice Sam Hanson of the Minnesota Supreme Court)

My opinion on why there are so many attorneys is because there is MONEY to be made. Of course knowing the law is part of a job you are paid for. Kinda like me knowing how to read a blue print. Niether is simple (fucking simple) but should be required knowledge if thats your job. Just my opinion.

That maybe so but its better than asking a message forum. If you get the same answer from multiple agencies wouldn't that give you a solid answer?

BTW attorneys aren't always willing to give free legal advice and are you 100% sure the guy that posted to a forum is in fact an attorney? If you've been here awhile you get the feel of who is a real attorney but new posters wouldn't have a clue...

The only legal advice offered here was, "you need legal advice."



Yes, if you think that "a cop told me so" is a legal defense that will stand up in court. Hint: it won't.


Not always, but they might. If not, when my freedom's on the line, I'm prepared to pay a little.



I wouldn't go by a feeling at all. I would spend the thirty seconds required to determine that Mr. Toder is a real attorney, with a specialty in maritime law.

I also believe that I can trust people like Joel, Professor Olson, or even me, when we say that Benson, Berris, Gross and Toder are attorneys to be trusted.

It would give you a solid answer as to what people in those "multiple agencies" believe, or have been told to say.

But let's say that each and every one of them is looking at the BCA FAQ, and repeating from it. Where the BCA FAQ is incorrect or incomplete, all you'll have done is gotten the same incorrect or incomplete information over and over again, and be even more sure of it.

And it is!

See how many errors you can find in question 24...
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Doc ... prohibited

...or 33...
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Doc ... orvisiting

...or 42...
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Doc ... ssforrenew

So why is it such a game? They enforce the law don't they?

When I used to work at regions hospital I had a woman make a false claim that I hit her vehicle while parking out on the street between the hospital and 94. The responding officer left a ticket on my truck for parking within 3 feet of another vehicle. I looked up the street and there were 30 vehicles parked within three feet of each other. I drove straight to the police station and requested to speak to whoever was in charge. I believe it was a Sgt. came to the desk. I asked him What the F#$k? He pulled out an epic sized tome of laws, flipped to the page, and pointed to the ordinance. It was tossed in traffic court as it was a bullshit ticket because neither the women nor the officer could prove the crack in her bumper was caused by my bumper that actually lined up 8 inches above her bumper.

The point being, are you telling me when an officer arrests you no one confirms that there’s actually an ordinance that supports his arrest?

I guess I should be more specific so you don't play semantics. When I said get a "feel" what I meant is if you read enough posts here where people claim to be attorneys either supported with credentials or supporting statements from other forum members. You get an idea of who is actually an attorney. That said I wouldn't consider any advice posted to a forum the Gold Standard of what's legal and not legal. Hell attorneys have educated opinions even when paid. At the end of the day a jury decides your fate.

The way liberal activism is fast becoming judicial activism it's hard to believe anything is set in stone anymore.

So let's do it like this since I don't think the OP's question is as grey an area as you make it out to be.

Does the MPPA statutes allow for carry in a boat on MN waterways?

Wow! No wonder it's so hard to tell a cop anything. They all think the BCA is the gold standard.

Thanks for the lesson in living.....

Sure. But pace Inigo Montoya, that word, "enforce", it doesn't mean what you think it means.

And, most of the time, it doesn't matter. When a cop arrests a guy for killing another guy (rare; murder isn't exactly common) or driving drunk (much more common) not only is he likely to be more than passingly familiar with the various statutes that forbid those naughtinesses, but there's going to be a statute, even if he were to forget which one, that covers that.

We've got a zillion laws (rough estimate) around, and there's no reason for most cops to be familiar with the vast majority of them. It's in the rare areas that some of these apply. Unless, say, he runs across somebody who isn't doing something wrong who is, say, walking down Nicolet Mall with a shotgun slung over his shoulder, how important is it if he doesn't know which section of 624.7181 makes that lawful, and why should he spend more time studying that one than he should the Federal law that makes possession of a short lobster a crime? In theory, of course, it'd be great if he knows all of the details -- but as one member just pointed out, this stuff isn't simple (and whatever being familiar with a gazillion laws might be, simple isn't it).

Me, I'm impatient with the number of departments that haven't bothered to educated their boys and girls on the basics of the MCPPA, almost six years in, sure. But were I running a PD (please stop laughing) I'm not sure that I'd not be spending my guys' (and guyettes') in-service time on some of the latest developments in search and seizure law, instead.

Besides, it leads to moments of humor. Greg Reinhardt, who runs Special Services for MPD (and let's not get into the dark humor of a guy with that last name running a department with that name; I've met him, and he came across as a nice guy) once had a letter to the editor in the Strib where he avowed that it was unlawful to possess a gun in public with any alcohol whatsoever in one's body. (Cue JimC).

All except for the best ones. They want to know the factual basis for what sounds like an unusual claim, and then look it up.

Sometimes. There was the guy who was pulled over on a CWB in Minneapolis, and booked in on (rough quote) "possession of hollowpoint ammo by an unauthorized person I don't remember what the statute is." There wasn't one; the sergeant looked it up and "unarrested" him. (He was not, you'll be shocked to hear, transported back in time and returned to when and where he was stopped.)

I don't make this stuff up, you know. (No, I'm not claiming that all or most cops will pull a guy over on a CWB. I am claiming that some will, because, well, it's happened.)