10. Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?

* School property.
*A childcare center while children are present
* In the vicinity of a school bus occupied by children.
* Public colleges and universities - may have policy restricting the carrying of weapons on their premises by employees and students while on campus.
* Private establishments that have posted a sign banning guns on their premises.
* Private establishments who have personally informed the permit holder that guns are prohibited and demands compliance.
*Places of employment, public or private, if employer restricts the carry or possession of firearms by its employees.

News to me.
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Doc ... it%20valid

Email BCA...ask them to define "vicinity". I bet they won't have a clue.

Red

The law says "the area within a school bus", not the area AROUND a school bus. Minn. Stat. 609.66 Subd 1 d.(4)(iii).

I think "within" fairly refers to the "bus" and not the "area". So the BCA's "vicinity" is the result of somebody trying to slip in a little "extra".

Problem is, if you get arrested it might be awhile before somebody will actually read the law.

Called and left a message this morning. Will see what happens. May have to follow up with a letter.

My concerns are:

1. As an instructor, what does this mean I have to explain to my students. "vicinity" is not a very clear statement.
2. As a parent with 2 kids that ride school bus, what does "vicinty" mean.
3. As a home owner, I have two bus stops directly in front of my house, what does "vicinty" mean.
4. When was this added to the original MCPPA?

There's also a whole string of exceptions to "school property" that have been left unmentioned.

I'm not prohibited from walking past a sign
Who started making this shit up over there? I know we've had a good relationship with the BCA, but are things changing that quickly over there?

I suspect there is some clerical interpretation for purposes of summary. The editing is Red Star caliber, though.

I've had a chat with the right person and suggested some edits. I expect it to be taken care of shortly.

As for the signs, yes, technically it's "prohibited," but in an utterly toothless way. That one's not worth the effort to clarify.

Andrew, I gotta admit I'm kinda curious how some of these conversations go.

Andrew and others, thanks for being so proactive about these things. I firmly believe that when the "slippers of stuff past" people get prompt and forceful feedback, it lessens the chance of further "slipping"

Oh, it's pretty straightforward.

"Hey, Bob, this FAQ was called to my attention, and it looks like it's not quite as accurate as it could be. The law actually says "X", not "Y. Can I send you a quick email with the parts that could use some help, along with the underlying statute? Yeah? Great! Hey, have a great Thanksgiving!"

The trick (if there is one), is knowing who to call, and having them already know that you're honest and well-informed.

It is also helpful -- really helpful -- to have honest, ethical, service-oriented professionals in positions of authority, like we've already seen from the BCA and the DNR.

When everyone in the system, at the end of the day, wants to do The Right Thing, The Right Thing often gets done.

Yep ............the gent at the BCA in particular.

My hat is off (again) to Mr. Andrew Rothman. Thanks.

Someone has got to keep them honest!

Good work!