According to Commissioner Parker, your office has advised the Board that it is your opinion that the county's ban on firearms at polling places, notwithstanding the possession of a carry permit, is legal and valid.

I can only conclude that you are unfamiliar with Minnesota Statutes 471.633 and 624.714, Subd. 23, which both clearly state that the county is preempted by state law from imposing any such restriction.

Now that you have been made aware of these statutes, please advise the board that such posting is in violation of state law, and enforcement by county officials of the illegal ban may expose the county to liability for deprivation of civil rights under color of law as well as other torts.

Given the short time remaining before the election, I will expect your reply by email or registered mail within the next 48 hours.

Given the short time remaining before the election, I will expect your reply by email or registered mail within the next 48 hours.

Changed 'registered' to 'certified'....

I am waiting with baited breath, but not holding my breath.

Dear Mr. Krafft:

I am very familiar with Minnesota Statutes 471.633 and 624.714. Please be assured that I researched the law extensively before I gave the opinion to the Ramsey County Board that they could enact an ordinance banning guns on County property.

The authority for enacting the public safety ordinance stems from Minn. Stat. §624.72 and §375.18. These two sections, read together, give the County Board broad authority to pass rules relating to the use county property. Courts have also recognized the right of municipalities to pass reasonable regulations with respect the use of their property. See Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966).

The sections you cite apply only to a Countywide regulation of firearms or limitation on a permit to carry. For example, Ramsey County could not ban guns in all bars in Ramsey County and cannot impose restrictions on the sale of firearms that are more restrictive that those set by the state. Neither of the statutes cited denies Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property.

Darwin Lookingbill
Civil Division Director
Office of the Ramsey County Attorney
(651)266-2755

Should I ask for a clarification? Or leave this sleeping dog lie until a more propitious time?

Neither of the statutes cited denies Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property.

Does anyone else see anything in these two statutes that I am missing?

Dear Mr. Lookingbill,

In your letter you state "Neither of the statutes cited [Minn. Stat. §471.633 and §624.714, Subd. 23] denies Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property". Can you please explain to me why you believe that §624.72 Subd. 23's statement "No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may ... limit the exercise of a permit to carry" fails to "den[y] Ramsey County the authority to regulate the presence of weapons on county property" when those weapons are being carried in accordance with §624.72? Could you also please explain how a ban on county property does not constitute a "limitation on a permit to carry"

I am also curious how you can construe §471.633 "The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them" to "apply only to a Countywide regulation of firearms".

You cite Adderly v. Florida as an example of "the right of municipalities to pass reasonable regulations with respect the use of their property" but Adderly specifically states that the defendants were on a nonpublic driveway whereas Ramsey County Public Safety Ordinance 2003-214 specifically applies to public property.

Finally Brown v. Louisiana actually supports my belief that your ordinance is unlawful when it states in paragraph 3 of the holding "Regulation of libraries and other public facilities must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and may not be used as a pretext for punishing those who exercise their constitutional rights." Since the "legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms" your ordinance is discriminatory in that it attempts to punish those who exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in accordance with Minn. §624.72.

Thank-you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bruce W. Krafft