This isn't intended to be legal advice, but rather just a list of resources
for those who are interested in learning more about the Minnesota gun laws.
These are appeals decisions, straight from the Minnesota Government's websites,
relevent to Minnesota's gun laws.
Some of these decisions were overturned on appeal. I've included both
decisions, when I knew of them. But any of these decisions may have been
overturned without my having learned of it. I'm not a lawyer, and before
you go assuming which of these cases constitutes binding precedent, if any,
you really should talk to a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing.
C5-98-1180
Court of Appeals
Minnesota vs. Taylor
May 18, 1999
The statutory exception to the requirement of a permit to possess a pistol in a motor vehicle that allows an unloaded pistol to be carried in a "case" refers to a gun case and does not extend to a purse.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9905/c5981180.htm
0-98-888
Court of Appeals
Minnesota vs. Graham
February 23, 1999
In an appeal from conviction, John Graham challenges the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a charge for transportation of a loaded, uncased firearm and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the requisite elements of fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle. Because state courts have jurisdiction over criminal acts committed by non-Band members in Indian country, and the evidence supports Graham's fleeing conviction, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9902/888.htm
C5-96-901
Court of Appeals
Minnesota vs. Holmes
November 22, 1996
This is a pretrial appeal by the state from an order of the district court suppressing evidence and dismissing the charge against Holmes of carrying a weapon without a permit in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714. By notice of review, Holmes challenges the district court's interpretation of an exception to the statute. Because we find that the district court improperly suppressed evidence, but properly interpreted the statute, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9611/901.htm
C5-96-901
Supreme Court
Minnesota vs. Holmes
1. A police officer cannot make a Terry stop to investigate a parking violation.
2. When a police officer's sole motivation in conducting an inventory search of an automobile is to discover evidence of a crime, it is unreasonable.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9709/c596901.htm
C5-02-858
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Grillo
May 20, 2003
1. Prosecution of an individual under Minnesota's "Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm" statute for possession of a firearm after adjudication as delinquent for commission of a predicate "crime of violence" that was not classified as a "crime of violence" when the person was so adjudicated is not a violation of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.
2. Inclusion of offense for which an individual was adjudicated delinquent as a "crime of violence" after the person had been so adjudicated, thus disqualifying him or her from possessing a firearm, and subsequent prosecution for possessing a firearm as an ineligible person was not an unconstitutional application of ex post facto law.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0305/op020858-0520.htm
C6-95-2162
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Pendleton
November 5, 1996
Appellant Akeem Pendleton challenges his convictions of first- and second-degree assault, alleging the trial court's self-defense jury instructions were inaccurate and misleading in that the instructions required him to meet the three conditions set forth in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 170 N.W.2d 104 (1969), to justify his use of deadly force. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9611/2162.htm
C6-95-2162
Supreme Court
Minnesota v. Pendleton
August 7, 1997
1. Fear of death or great bodily harm is not an element of a "defense of dwelling" claim. Minn. Stat. § 609.065.
2. Jury instructions that required the jury to find that the defendant feared great bodily harm or death to justify his use of deadly force in preventing the commission of a felony in his place of abode were in error, and the error was not harmless.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9708/c6952162.htm
C9-96-660
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Carter
December 31, 1996
Anthony (NMN) Carter appeals from a conviction for second-degree felony murder, arguing the trial court gave the jury misleading and erroneous instructions. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9612/660.htm
C3-96-525
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Welfare of: B.J.H., Child.
August 13, 1996
A trial court found B.J.H. guilty of behavior constituting
third-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd.
1, adjudged her a delinquent child, and placed her on indefinite
probation. On appeal, B.J.H. argues the evidence is insufficient
to sustain the trial court's decision because: (1) the victim lacked
credibility; and (2) the record fails to support the determination
that B.J.H. either was an aggressor not entitled to claim self-
defense or transcended the boundaries of justifiable force. We
affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9608/c396525.htm
C5-98-675
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Allen
December 8, 1998
Appellant Anita Allen was charged with second-degree assault, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.222, subd. 1, 609.101, subd. 2, and 609.11 (1996), after stabbing a liquor store manager who demanded she leave the store. After failing to give the required pre-trial notice of its intended reliance on the defense of self-defense or a proposed self-defense jury instruction at the instruction conference, defense counsel requested an instruction at the close of trial on the basis of evidence that the store manager pushed Allen before she stabbed him. On appeal, Allen challenges the trial court's self-defense jury instruction. Because the trial court did not misstate the law in its jury instruction, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9812/675.htm
C8-98-86
Supreme Court
Minnesota v. Carothers
June 17, 1999
A duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims. So long as a person claiming defense of dwelling meets all of the criteria for making his or her claim - that the killing was done in the belief that it was necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, that the person's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and that the person's election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended - the person need not have attempted to retreat from his or her home.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9906/c89886.htm
CX-96-1672
Supreme Court
Minnesota v. Hare
March 5, 1998
1. Minnesota's defense of dwelling defense anticipates an unauthorized intrusion into the defendant's dwelling. Necessarily, when the defendant and the victim reside in the same dwelling, the defendant cannot raise the defense of dwelling defense.
2. We caution trial courts that when a homicide defendant, asserting self-defense, claims that the resulting death was unintentional, CRIMJIG 7.05 is inappropriate and that CRIMJIG 7.06 is likely to better fit the facts of the case.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9803/cx961672.htm
C8-99-1507
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Glowacki
July 18, 2000
In an altercation between co-residents occurring within a defendant's own home, the legal excuse of self-defense does not include a duty to retreat.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0007/c8991507.htm
C8-99-1507
Supreme Court
Minnesota v. Glowacki
July 12, 2001
There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident, although any use of force must be reasonable under the specific circumstances of each case.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0107/c8991507.htm
C7-96-1452
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Miessner
May 20, 1997
Appellant challenges a jury conviction of second-degree assault. Because appellant waived his right to be present during the omnibus hearing, and because appellant has not shown that the trial court committed reversible error when admitting prior act evidence and when instructing the jury, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9705/1452.htm
C5-01-39
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Reed
October 30, 2001
Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree assault, arguing that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not establish one or more of the elements of self-defense. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the state met its burden of proof, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0110/39.htm
C6-97-738
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.G.K.
November 25, 1997
A trial court found J.G.K. guilty of second-degree felony assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (1996), and fifth-degree misdemeanor assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 1 (1996), and adjudged her delinquent. On appeal, J.G.K. argues the evidence was insufficient to support her adjudication because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that J.G.K. was not acting in self-defense. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9711/738.htm
9-96-1758
Court of Appeals
Maly v. Hofman
April 22, 1997
Appellant Richard Maly challenges the district court's admission of evidence regarding alleged affairs Maly had with Hofman's wife and daughter-in-law, claiming the evidence was not relevant to establish Hofman acted in self-defense, and that it prejudiced his assault and battery claims against Hofman. Maly also claims the district court erred in determining Hofman prevailed, and was thereby entitled to reasonable costs and disbursements. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9704/1758.htm
C2-97-1482
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Wood
May 5, 1998
Appellant Kristi Kathaleen Wood challenges the district court's jury instructions, claiming the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the legal doctrine of justification included the right to defend another who was being assaulted. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9805/1482.htm
C8-02-885
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Soukup
February 11, 2003
The legal excuse of self-defense applies to a charge of disorderly conduct where the behavior forming the basis of the offense presents the threat of bodily harm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0302/c802885.htm
C4-01-1635
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Adams
July 2, 2002
A jury convicted appellant Tabitha Adams of four traffic offenses: leaving the scene of an accident, careless driving, inattentive driving (speed greater than reasonable and prudent), and unsafe passing on the left. On appeal, Adams argues that the district court erred by: (1) failing to instruct the jury that if Adams genuinely feared being harmed, she was required by law to leave the scene; (2) failing to dismiss the charge of inattentive driving; (3) excluding the testimony of a defense witness; and (4) failing to give an instruction that the testimony of police officers is not entitled to any greater weight than the testimony of any other witness. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0207/1635.htm
C1-00-1663
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Nelson
June 12, 2001
This is an appeal from a conviction for second-degree assault. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he did not grab a rifle and fire shots into the air in self-defense, to ward off the victim, whom appellant testified was approaching him and appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Appellant raises additional issues in his pro se brief. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0106/1663.htm
C1-00-1310
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Shane
April 17, 2001
The district court found appellant guilty of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle. Claiming that one of the officers from whom he was fleeing had assaulted him on two prior occasions, appellant charges as reversible error the court's refusal to allow him to present evidence of self-defense. Because the stipulated facts do not show a valid claim of self-defense, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0104/1310.htm
C2-98-1718
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Wolff
May 25, 1999
Appellant was found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.20(1) (1996) after submission to the district court based on the record. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, the failure of the district court to make specific findings related to his defense of dwelling claim, and the district court's order admitting three statements made prior to receiving a Miranda warning. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9905/1718.htm
C8-99-308
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Linville
July 6, 1999
A person traveling between home and place of business is not covered by the Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 9(c) (1998), exception to the handgun permit requirement if the person's home is not in reasonable proximity to the place of business.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9907/c899308.htm
C1-98-298
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Hicks
August 25, 1998
This appeal is from a pretrial order dismissing appellant State of Minnesota's case against respondent Charles Edward Hicks. Hicks was arrested and charged with carrying a weapon without a permit in a public place, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (1996). On appeal, the state argues the trial court erred in interpreting the statutory terms "public place or public area."
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9808/c198298.htm
C9-01-559
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Palmer
December 4, 2001
For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 9(a) (1998), which establishes an exception to the requirement that an individual must have a permit to possess a pistol, a person's "place of business" does not include a vehicle used by a courier company's employee.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0112/c901559.htm
C2-01-1603
Court of Appeals
Lom v. Itasca County, et al.
February 26, 2002
On appeal from summary judgment, appellant, who was arrested for domestic assault, argues that the district court erred by (1) dismissing his wrongful imprisonment and invasion of privacy claims on the grounds that respondents were immune from civil liability for the arrest under Minn. Stat. § 629.341, subd. 2 (2000), and (2) dismissing his claims for wrongful revocation and denial of a permit to carry a pistol on the grounds that the exclusive remedy for denial was appeal to the district court under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 12 (2000). We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0202/1603.htm
C1-99-621
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Jackson
December 7, 1999
Appellant Jerry Lamont Jackson challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress a gun seized during an investigative stop. Jackson, a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle, argues the police did not have a reasonable basis to conduct a pat search. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9912/621.htm
C5-98-1583
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Ebacher
May 25, 1999
Appellant challenges the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence of a loaded handgun found in appellant's possession. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9905/1583.htm
C5-97-2111
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Pape
August 4, 1998
In 1992, Oscar Phillip Pape was adjudicated delinquent on two counts of second-degree burglary (a crime of violence). Four years later, a trial court found Pape guilty of illegally possessing a firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b) (1996) and carrying a weapon without a permit in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (1996). On appeal, Pape argues Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b) violates: (1) federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws; and (2) his constitutional right to due process. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9808/2111.htm
C4-97-2097
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Mueller
April 21, 1998
The state appeals from an omnibus order dismissing for lack of probable cause the charge of carrying a weapon without a permit against respondent Dennis Lee Mueller. Because a statutory exception to the permit requirement applies under the specific facts of this case, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the charge.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9804/2097.htm
C6-01-602
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Carter
January 8, 2002
Appellant challenges his conviction of possession of a pistol without a permit, arguing that he was unlawfully detained when a police officer asked for consent to search him, and therefore the pistol and appellant's admission to possession of the pistol should have been suppressed as fruit of the illegal detention. Because we conclude that there was no illegal detention, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0201/602.htm
C9-00-2060
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Kretz
September 18, 2001
Appellant Scott Frederick Kretz challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress a handgun obtained during an inventory search of his vehicle. Because the inventory search was conducted according to standardized police procedure, we affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0109/2060.htm
C5-97-2206
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Devich
May 5, 1998
In this pretrial appeal, the State of Minnesota contends that the district court erred by suppressing critical evidence in the case against respondent Jessie Michael-Joseph Devich. The state asserts that the car Devich was driving was properly searched, pursuant to a valid traffic stop, because police had a reasonable suspicion that the car contained weapons. Because we find that the suppressed evidence was seized in the absence of a reasonable suspicion, we affirm the district court's suppression order.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9805/2206.htm
C9-96-1291, C0-96-1292,
C2-96-1293, C4-96-1294,
C6-96-1295, C8-96-1296,
CX-96-1297, C1-96-1298,
C3-96-1299
Supreme Court
Minnesota v. Stone, et al.
December 11, 1997
1. Minnesota's laws regarding speeding (Minn. Stat. § 169.14 (1996)); driver licensing (Minn. Stat. §§ 171.02, 171.27 (1996)); vehicle registration (Minn. Stat. § 168.09 (1996)); seat belt use (Minn. Stat. § 169.686 (1996)); child restraint seats (Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 5 (1996)); motor vehicle insurance (Minn. Stat. § 169.797 (1996)); and proof of insurance (Minn. Stat. § 169.791 (1996)) are civil/regulatory for purposes of Public Law 280.
2. Minnesota lacks jurisdiction under Public Law 280 to enforce civil/regulatory laws against members of an Indian tribe for conduct occurring within the boundaries of the tribe's reservation.
3. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying the state's enforcement of these laws against members of an Indian tribe for on-reservation conduct in the absence of a federal grant of jurisdiction.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9712/c9961291.htm
C4-99-287
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Dendy
July 20, 1999
1. Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, which was amended in 1994 to prohibit persons convicted of drug offenses from possessing any firearm, controls over Minn. Stat. § 624.711, enacted in 1975, which declares legislative policy not to regulate shotguns used for hunting.
2. Because respondent was convicted of drug offenses in 1993 and 1995, he is ineligible to possess any firearm, including a shotgun used for hunting.
3. A person who has been convicted of drug offenses is not entitled to notice of ineligibility to possess a shotgun.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9907/c499287.htm
C8-01-1735
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Knaeble
October 29, 2002
1. A felon may be convicted of illegal possession of a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a), without proof that the firearm was operable at the time of the possession.
2. The general statement of policy in Minn. Stat. § 624.711 against legislative regulation of shotguns and other specified firearms does not bar prosecution under a specific statutory prohibition against possession of such firearms by convicted felons.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0210/c8011735.htm
C6-00-1948
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Foster
May 29, 2001
A person whose felony conviction becomes a misdemeanor pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.13, subd. 1(2) (2000), is subject to prosecution for the crime of felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b), 2 (2000), if the prior felony conviction constitutes a "crime of violence" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5 (2000).
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0105/c6001948.htm
C4-02-1080
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Bye
May 6, 2003
Appellant Justin Bye, Sr. challenges his conviction for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. We affirm the district court's issuance of the search warrant because the affidavit establishes that the district court had a substantial basis to make a probable-cause finding. We further conclude that the state was not obligated to prove that Bye knew of his ineligibility to possess a firearm. Finally, we reverse Bye's sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing. The district court failed to inform Bye that he had a right of allocution before a sentence was imposed.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0305/op021080-0506.htm
C3-02-48
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Schluter
December 10, 2002
The statutory amendment that extended the prohibition against possessing firearms to those convicted of felony controlled substance offenses committed before the effective date of the amendment did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Minnesota or United States Constitutions.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0212/c30248.htm
C3-98-1615
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Taylor
March 16, 1999
Under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 3 (1996), notice of ineligibility to possess a shotgun is not required. A report of shots fired and an officer's observation of a man "racking" a shotgun and pointing it in the direction of women in the home constitutes an exigent circumstance.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9903/c3981615.htm
C4-98-2286
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Coauette
September 28, 1999
1. A paintball gun is not a "firearm," as that term is used in the drive-by shooting statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e (a) (1998), or the felon-in-possession statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.165, subd. 1b(a) (1998), 624.713, subd. 1(b) (1998).
2. A paintball gun is not a real weapon and, therefore, is not within the Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (1998), definition of "dangerous weapon" applicable to the second-degree assault statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (1998).
3. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (1998), an ordinary item like a paintball gun may be converted into a "dangerous weapon," but only if used in a manner calculated to cause great bodily harm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9909/c4982286.htm
C5-98-1454
Court of Appeals
Minnesota v. Kolk
December 22, 1998
This appeal involves a state challenge to a pretrial order suppressing evidence of a BB gun discovered after Kolk was stopped. We affirm.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9812/1454.htm