Has anyone in Minnesota ever been cited for carrying in a "Posted" business since the carry law has passed in 2003/5?

Has anyone been even asked to leave for carrying? (Other than "Reaver's" successful library demonstration.)

I have not heard of any.

I do not think anyone has been cited for trespass while carrying. I would guess that we would hear it being plastered all over the news.

Bruce Kraft was removed from the MOA, I believe back in 2003, while carrying openly. Pretty sure he wasn't charged. I think it did make the news.

Wasn't there a similar incident at Maplewood Mall?

In the training session I took for Minnesota's permit, the instructor explained (whether rightly or wrongly) that the signage part of the statute does not satisfy the "request" language of the statute. In other words, his argument was that unless you refuse to leave after your asked (orally requested) to, you can't be cited. I questioned why the signage itself wouldn't be interpreted as the "request," thus causing a citation to issue (or a violation of the law) simply because you refused to leave after seeing the sign (i.e., you ignored the sign after seeing it). I questioned why a business owner who posted the correct signage would have to take the extra step of asking me to leave. He said the general consensus is that my interpretation of the statute was not what was intended when the law passed. He said the statute was meant to state that a citation can only be issued after the oral request to leave is refused, signage or not. He could not point me to any court decision interpreting the statute his way, but I know of none interpreting it any other way as of yet either. To my knowledge, it just hasn't come up in the courts yet. If someone does get cited without having refused to leave after having been orally requested to do so, his/her attorney should make the above statutory interpretation argument as depending on the judge you get, it could be correct. I sure like my instructor's interpretation better than the one I started with.

Any of you guys with much more experience in this area than me have any thoughts on the above?

You're simply reading the statute wrong.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/624/714.html


The first request is the sign (or verbal request). The second step is being ordered to leave, and it's not optional. Only after refusing that order ("so requested" in the law) can the cops be summoned to issue the $25 citation.

He was, He was not charged, and it did make the news.

Bruces best work was open carry at the capitol durning a Anti news conference.

Ths Anti's were upset that he could have a real gun and they could bring a fake "Assuat Weapon".

(If I recall a story told by someone else)
Bruce was given a normal "trespass" warning. He was not supposed to come back for 30 days. When his 30 days was up, he went back in and open carried again. By this time, I think the mall knew better what they could and couldn't do.

I believe you can go to CCRN's Yahoo group, and look back in the summer of 2003 to find out for sure.

Thanks, Andrew. It's good to know that my instructor was correct in his teachings on this subject. Note that this quoted langauge of the statute isn't exactly crystal clear though, which still gives me reason to worry if this ever comes up in court.

The statute provides,

". . . who remains at a private establishment knowing that
the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a
reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the
establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person
who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty
misdemeanor."

The confusion for me comes in with the use of the word "requested" instead of "ordered" in the last sentece above. I could see some court interpreting this second use of the work "requested" to refer back to either the "reasonable request" (i.e., the signage) or the "may be ordered to leave" language. Thus I agree that the first use of the word "request" is the sign (or a verbal request in lieu of a sign). But my fear is that the statute leaves room for different interpretations of that last sentence because it uses the word "requested" again instead of "ordered." That's sloppy draftsmanship. The last sentence would have been much clearer and there wouldn't have been any wiggle room for interpretation if that last sentence read "A person who fails to leave when so ordered is guilty of a petty misdemeanor."

It sure would have been clearer. "Clearer" is apparently not a priority of lawmakers.

Just like the Minnesota trespass statute:
1. Notice
2. Request
3. Violate (if doesn't leave).
It is a THREE-Step process.

It appears that no one has ever been cited for violating this statute.

We should take Horvack's advice and stop yapping about it.

Kimberman wrote



Yup! That's why I thought it time to ask the question!