Minnesota Laws on Carrying Handguns in the woods??

[Tom7227]

Ok, this circle is getting really old, but one last attempt. Minn. Stat §624.7181 deals with carrying rifles and shotguns. Minn. Stat. 624.714 deals with pistols.

An arguement could be fashioned that the definition of public place from 7181 should be carried to 713, and in fact I included that in one of my original posts. I still think it is illegal to carry a pistol in the woods unless 714 (9) applies.

As for Kitty's continued reference to my earlier erroneous posts - I did write a correction later on and apologized for my error.

I agree that obtaining a conviction for violating this law may be difficult, and also that the likelihood of someone getting arrested for it may be rare. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. And for those who say you could avoid it by claiming you were target shooting, go ahead and try, but by that time you're a defendant.

My goal in answering on this thread is to create an awareness of the possiblity of a violation. Given the right facts I think a conviction is possilbe.

Do what you chose with the information that's available.

[picksbigwagon]

okay, just looking for a yes or no. If I go grouse hunting or pheasant hunting and carry along my 1911, does it need to be visible or if my hunting coat covers it, am I okay? No I do not have my permit to carry, but I might someday soon

[Tom7227]

No. "Concealed" is not in the pistol permit law.

[BobT]

I'm having difficulty understanding why you feel 624.7181 doesn't apply to handguns when 624.714 specifically refers to it for the definition of public place.

Quote:

I still think it is illegal to carry a pistol in the woods unless 713 (9) applies.

I'm confused by what you've said here. Did you fat finger something or am I reading it correctly?

You're statement seems to imply that you think if 713(9) applied to me, I would be legal to carry????? 614.713 lists specific situations that would make it illegal to even possess firearms of any kind and 713(9) is referring to someone that has been convicted of domestic assault with or without a firearm.

[BobT]

No. "Concealed" is not in the pistol permit law.

On this I definitely agree with you, Tom. Now if I could only get you to come around to my way of thinking on the rest of it.

[Tom7227]

Bob,

Typo - 714(9) is the proper reference.

I think we just have to agree to disagree. I'm retired now so you don't have to worry about me prosecuting you.

[BobT]

Whew! Good thing, eh?

Yes. I can and have agreed to disagree. Like I stated earlier. I think the only way I could be really convinced is to have a third party (judge) make a ruling.

Have you ever tried a case where someone was charged with possession without a permit as I've described and if so, are you able to share the result?

[Tom7227]

I was involved in prosecuting well over 400 - 700 gun crimes. I worked for a city and so the 'field' question never came up. No hunting allowed in Ramsey County. If it had I would have taken a run at it.

BTW I am not anti-gun in any way. Just anti-bad guy with guns, and I had chances to meet a lot of them.

[picksbigwagon]

So I can carry the 1911 under my coat on my belt? That is great, saves me from buying one of those leg holsters too.....would have made my walk to the deer stand a little easier this last fall too.....I looked pretty goofy with my 357 belted outside of my big blaze orange coat. Now I know, thanks for answering that question.

[BobT]

I decided to take my questions to the local county sheriff and he in turn took it to our local CO. I thought I'd share the conversation.

First, this is how I worded my question.

Quote:

I have been engaged in a discussion about minnesota handgun laws and I'm hoping that you could offer your opinion.

Our focus has been MN Statute 624.714.

I have been arguing that in Minnesota a permit is not required to

possess or carry on my person a handgun while afield or in the woods even if I am not actively hunting or target shooting at the time. Naturally, we are talking about areas where firearms are allowed.

For example, I like to use my .44 magnum revolver for deer hunting in northern MN. Suppose I take a drive up there in early June for some pre-season scouting. Knowing that springtime introduces a higher risk of potentially coming across a timber wolf den with pups or a she bear with cubs (both are very present in the area) I might like to carry my .44 magnum along for protection just in case. Since I do not have a MN

permit to carry, would I be in violation of our MN handgun laws?

I have argued my position based on two things.

1.

624.714 refers to carrying handguns in "public places" and then refers to 624.7181, subd. 1 for the definition of public place. 624.7181 states that public place does not include "the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms."

My argument here is that carrying a firearm and in my case a pistol is a lawful activity involving firearms.

2.

624.714, Subd. 9(4) states that a permit is not required "to carry a pistol in the woods or fields or upon the waters of this state for the purpose of hunting or of target shooting in a safe area;"

I would appreciate your proffessional opinion.

Here is the response I received from our county sheriff. I was pleasantly surprised that he responded the next day.

Quote:

Bob

You bring up an interesting question. While MN Statute 624.714 and other areas address the issue of "land for the purpose of hunting or target shooting," 624.7181 brings up the addition of "other lawful criteria." This is bordering on "legal speak" and I can see this as a local enforcement issue. For instance, if our local deputies cited you for this violation, our local county attorney may or may not wish to pursue charges, based upon his understanding of these statutes. The same would hold true for a county up north - their county attorney, using the same criteria, may choose to pursue charges or dismiss the violation based upon his interpretation of the same statute.

I did talk to a local Game Warden who felt that your purpose of being in the woods fell under the "other lawful criteria." He advised that he felt that this would be the opinion statewide but you may want to talk to the local warden in the area where you are going.

As you can see, the local sheriff didn't have a concrete opinion one way or another and the local CO felt I would be okay however he also said so with reservation and therefore he too did not have a concrete opinion. This suggests that one could be cited and then have to put up a defense.

Based on this information and the strong opinion from Tom7272, whose opinion I've come to respect, I would have to agree with others that the best option would be to obtain a permit to carry before trecking afield with a pistol unless you're obviously hunting or target shooting legally. It doesn't appear to be a cut and dried matter and I'm sure it costs much less to obtain the permit than to obtain an acquittal. In the end, the training is probably good for us anyway.

Thanks for an enjoyable and rewarding debate. It was fun.

[Tom7227]

Bob,

Here's my argument.

7181 deals with long guns. The definition from 7181 is carried by reference to 714. 714 deals with pistols and is more restrictive than 7181. The specific language in 714 9a modifies the definition of public place in 7181. The language is not the same and so the more specific language controls as it is presumed that the difference is there for a reason (legal principle).

I would also argue that even the less restrictive language of 7181 requires that the person be in the field doing something that involves firearms. That is somewhat loose language when you cut it to the nits we've been doing in this debate. And some would claim that you could get around it with some sort of claim that what you were doing involved the use of firearms. That gets it down to a question of fact, and so the jury would decide. Do you need a gun if you're collecting morels? What if there were reports of a cougar in the area?

Here's the specific language of each -

624.714 Subd. 9 (4) to carry a pistol in the woods or fields or upon the waters of this state for the purpose of hunting or of target shooting in a safe area;

624.7181 Subd. 1C

or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms.

Acceptance of these arguments requires that you have spent a number of years bending your mind into thinking that the law makes sense. There's all sorts of rules about interpreting statutes and at one time I may have studied them and maybe at one time could even name them. I can't any more. Your approach to dealing with this is just straight forward logic and reading the words in a common sense manner. But there’s all these rules of statutory construction that trip up.

The sheriff you spoke to is right - it's going to depend on what the lawyer that’s charging the case thinks the law says. Again, given the right set of facts I think there's a chance of getting charged.

I doubt that I can convince you that I'm dead right. But you are dead right that a permit is going to cost more than an acquittal.

Perhaps I owe you an apology for stringing this thing out this long, but as I am retired I try hard not to get so deep into this legal stuff cause it just drives me nuts and normally I’m not the kind of guy that hides so far behind the law that I have to go look up rules of construction.

Stay safe, and either get a permit or leave it at home!!

Tom

[Archerysniper]

Finally a mutual agreement and sorry for starting this so long ago

[BobT]

I don't think either of you have any reason to apologize. I had fun with the discussion and what point is there to discuss something if we all agree, right?

Thanks.

[Here-Kitty-Kitty]

Hey thanks for doing all that Bob.

[BobT]

Here's what I learned from our discussion.

It is not absolutely clear whether it is unlawful to carry a handgun afield or in the woods except when one is actively hunting or target shooting where these activities are allowed.

Whether or not one gets cited for doing so is dependent on the officer involved and his/her interpretation of the law. Therefore, the possibility of a citation can vary from one place to another and with different law enforcement officers.

Once cited, whether or not the prosecutor having jurisdiction files charges will be dependent on his/her interpretation of the law. Therefore, the possibility of defending oneself against charges can vary depending on the county where the citation was issued.

The safest/best option to avoid issue is to get properly trained and obtain a MN permit to carry.

[Here-Kitty-Kitty]

Well said Bob thanks again.

[BobT]

It's unfortunate that our legislature can't be a little clearer on this. It leaves to too much confusion about what one can or cannot do. I for one, have been standing on a shaky ladder for years because I was not aware it was so poorly written.

I know, ignorance is no defense, but in this case I wonder if it should be in the event one would be cited. If law enforcement and our county attorneys can't decide consistantly throughout the state then where does that leave the average citizen?

It leaves us in a situation where law abiding citizens can be criminals one time and not the next for doing the same thing depending on who is involved, even though they are not trying to get away with something shady or illegal.

[BobT]

I've been doing a little further digging and I have found some other information that may be of interest.

This is from a guide compiled by staff at the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library for legislators.

In Minnesota, a person may not carry a pistol in a public place unless they are in possession of a "permit to carry". Exceptions to the permit requirement include law enforcement officers and other defined instances (Minnesota Statutes, section 624.714).

During the 2005 Session, several firearm carry bills were introduced to address the court decisions regarding the 2003 Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. In May of 2005, Senate File 2259 was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Governor Pawlenty signed Senate File 2259 into law (Laws of Minnesota 2005, chapter 83) on May 24, 2005. This act makes no distinction between "open carry" versus "concealed carry and persons with a valid permit are allowed to carry using either method.”

I have also often heard statements that if you have a permit you MUST conceal your weapon. I found some information about this from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension FAQs.

32. If I have a permit to carry a pistol do I have to conceal the pistol?

No. Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act is a permit to carry law, not a conceal and carry law.

One thing that I'm still researching is the opposite question. "If I do not have a permit, is it unlawful for me to conceal my pistol when I am carrying legally otherwise?" I have found nothing that denies it yet. I'll post the answer if I ever find it.

[BoxMN]

Good info and discussion, I have been following it and learning.

One things that peaked my interest was the question asked about whether the pistol was cased while transporting in the BWCA... would it have to be if the canoe was just paddled? For shotguns while waterfowl hunting, you can have them uncased if just paddling or rowing... so I would "assume" you could with a canoe and pistol as well.

I just find it unreal how you can ask those who are charged with upholding the laws specific questions, and you can get a bunch of different answers. I agree that if they can't agree on what is legal, how the heck is a regular Joe supposed to know?... I learned a lot when researching trespass laws and hunting over water in or out of metro area, and was very surprised with what I learned. This type of research from you all will help lots of people thanks!

And thanks Bob and Tom. (Tom I have another question for you, but unrelated, so will try to get hold of you another way.)

[Tom7227]

deleted

[Archerysniper]

Your firearm has to be cased when in a motorized vehical or under motorized power, paddels are not under this law exept for waterfowl that is federal laws check the waterfowl handbook for details.

Bob thanks for the debate it did bring alot of info out

[BobT]

Quote:

One thing that I'm still researching is the opposite question. "If I do not have a permit, is it unlawful for me to conceal my pistol when I am carrying legally otherwise?" I have found nothing that denies it yet. I'll post the answer if I ever find it.

Well, I presented this question to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and this is how I presented the question.

Quote:

If I do not have a permit to carry and I am hunting or otherwise using my pistol legally, is it unlawful for me to conceal it under my coat? For example, I might want to do this during inclement weather conditions to protect my pistol's finish.

I have always believed this would be okay because I find no laws that would deny concealing for persons that do not have a permit.

This is their reply.

Quote:

Conceal is not prohibited that we can determine, it just says carry about their person.

[magnum mike]

This has been an entertaining thread and I hate to muddy the waters further but...

I have recently completed the MN pistol carry permit process. Our instructor mentioned that MN game laws supersede the carry permit laws. I asked the question "Can I carry my .44 magnum loaded and concealed, with my permit, in a motor vehicle in the woods during the fall hunting season?" The instructor believed that I could NOT carry in those conditions. His interpretation was since the .44 is a legal firearm for hunting big game; I could not have it loaded. Using that "logic" I asked if I could carry a .22. He thought that may be legal. Then I mentioned that a .22 is legal for small game. He looked puzzled. Then I told him I am not a deer hunter and have not purchased a deer license for some time. He then deferred the question to the local CO.

My point here is I agree that these laws are poorly worded and unclear. It is obvious there is a problem when law enforcement and certified trainers can not clearly interpret these laws.

[BobT]

I suspect that it is the trainers that are more confused and unfortunately they may be spreading incorrect information, albeit not intentionally.

How can he say that the hunting laws supercede the carry permit laws? From what does he make this claim and by what authority?

The only authority to interpret these laws are our judges and of course the final judges are the state supreme court. Unfortunately, it can cost a lot of money for an individual to take it to a judge and even more to take to the highest level to obtain that final ruling. That's the part about our system that sucks. We either accept the interpretation of the enforcement officers or pay the price to fight it all the way. In the end, everyone benefits at the expense of one individual.