Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change to the state carry law recently?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Change to the state carry law recently?

    Has anyone heard of an amendment to the firearms carry law that says something to the effect that only courts can prohibit the carrying of firearms now? Or, only government buildings can prohibit carrying? I've been searching state websites and can't find a thing.

    We do not allow anyone other then LEO's to carry firearms in our facility, and recently some private security guards threw a stink when we told them they could not carry in our facility, saying the law changed and we could not prohibit them. They eventually complied, but now the county attorney is involved reviewing the issue.
    Just call me "Sir Robin"

  • #2
    I haven't herd anything about a change. You could probably just call a place that does the classes and ask them,, they would know. I would recommend burnsville pistol club www.bvpistol.com thats where i did my carry classes at. They are top notch there.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is the only thing I could find that somewhat resembles what these folks are talking about. The lettering in red, is what was removed/amended from the statute.


      H.F. No. 4198, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008) Posted on Apr 16, 2008

      1.1A bill for an act
      1.2relating to public safety; rescinding the authority granted to postsecondary
      1.3institutions to establish policy regarding the carrying and possession of firearms
      1.4by students on public postsecondary institution property;amending Minnesota
      1.5Statutes 2006, section 624.714, subdivision 18.
      1.6BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

      1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 624.714, subdivision 18, is amended to
      1.8read:
      1.9 Subd. 18. Employers; public colleges and universities. (a) An employer, whether
      1.10public or private, may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by
      1.11its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related
      1.12civil sanctions may be invoked for a violation.
      1.13 (b) A public postsecondary institution regulated under chapter 136F or 137 may
      1.14establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its students while on
      1.15the institution's property. Academic sanctions may be invoked for a violation.

      1.16 (c) (b) Notwithstanding paragraphs paragraph (a) and (b), an employer or a
      1.17postsecondary institution may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a
      1.18parking facility or parking area.

      Here's the link;
      https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/...l&session=ls85
      Just call me "Sir Robin"

      Comment


      • #4
        Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?

        * School property
        * A childcare center while children are present
        * 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 is employees
        * State correctional facilities or state hospitals and grounds (MN Statute 243.55)
        * Any jail, lockup or correctional facility (MN Statute 641.165)
        * Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
        * Offices and courtrooms of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
        * Any state building unless the commissioner of public safety is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
        * In a field while hunting big game by archery, except when hunting bear (MN Statute 97B.211)
        * In federal court facilities or other federal facilities (Title 18 U.S.C.§ 930)

        As Per the BCA website
        The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

        Comment


        • #5
          We're a county hospital, with signs posted on the doors. As far as I know, they still are not carrying firearms in here.

          I have worked private armed security before. If I had walked in somewhere that prohibited carrying, and it wasn't a clients property, I would secure it in my car. I just can't believe the stink these guys put up over this. They're not cops, they're private citizens. If a government owned facility says you can not carry a firearm in here, that should be the end of it.

          This is the second or third time, that I know of, in the last couple of years that we have had this problem. Now, because they made such a stink about it, the hospital is going to start enforcing rules pertaining to "forensic patients" (police and jail prisoners recieving care here).

          I can see a lot of tag and holds over the horizon, instead of sitting on prisoners...
          Last edited by natedog54; 08-07-2008, 05:20 AM.
          Just call me "Sir Robin"

          Comment


          • #6
            This is the section that the guards are thinking of:
            Look at the last line.

            Subd. 17. Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person
            or clothes under a permit or otherwise 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 fine for a first offense must not
            exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision
            is not subject to forfeiture.
            (b) As used in this subdivision, the terms in this paragraph have the meanings given.
            (1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:
            (i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the
            establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR)
            BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; or
            (ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are
            prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.
            (2) "Prominently" means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the
            bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.
            (3) "Conspicuous" means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height
            against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.
            (4) "Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned,
            leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose.
            (c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or
            possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.
            (d) This subdivision does not apply to private residences. The lawful possessor of a private
            residence may prohibit firearms, and provide notice thereof, in any lawful manner.
            (e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or
            their guests.
            (f) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions in section 609.605, this subdivision sets
            forth the exclusive criteria to notify a permit holder when otherwise lawful firearm possession is
            not allowed in a private establishment and sets forth the exclusive penalty for such activity.
            (g) This subdivision does not apply to:
            (1) an active licensed peace officer; or
            (2) a security guard acting in the course and scope of employment

            in looking at the statute, it only says a private establishment can ban firearms, so as a government building, the signs posted really don't mean much unless it is part of the policy that prohibits employees from carrying.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Livenlearn View Post
              This is the section that the guards are thinking of:
              Look at the last line.

              (g) This subdivision does not apply to:
              (1) an active licensed peace officer; or
              (2) a security guard acting in the course and scope of employment

              in looking at the statute, it only says a private establishment can ban firearms, so as a government building, the signs posted really don't mean much unless it is part of the policy that prohibits employees from carrying.
              EEP! I think you're right. The bottom line is, there is fairly specific criteria that pertains to using force against a patient. If the private guard happens to be sitting outside of the room, and observes a patient (other then the prisoner they are contracted to watch) becoming uncooperative and is escalating, the fear is that they may try to take matters into their own hands before we get called. They are not trained to do that.

              Having been through private security training myself, I know that it is not usually as good as what we get at county, or what LEO's get. The reason is that it costs the private security company money, so they burn through it as fast as possible. Which makes some of the information hard to retain.

              It'll be interesting to see what happens. I know one thought that is being kicked around is prohibiting private security companies from conducting business on the property. We'll see...
              Just call me "Sir Robin"

              Comment


              • #8
                Nate that is not going to work as you have ATMs on site and armored car people carry guns and I bet you don't hassel them when they come to serve your ATMs..they can probably beat you on the double standard.
                Happy to be here proud to serve

                "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

                Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by squad51 View Post
                  Nate that is not going to work as you have ATMs on site and armored car people carry guns and I bet you don't hassel them when they come to serve your ATMs..they can probably beat you on the double standard.
                  I hear ya. For years, armored car people have been the only non-LEO's they've allowed to be armed on property. Armored car is providing a differant service. The armed contract security in question is guarding a prisoner for an out-state jail. I think administration is just comming up with some knee-jerk reactions to this which is going to create a lot of hassles for everyone else that had nothing to do with this situation.

                  The policy, as I read it, is going to require all LEO's and Corrections personell to "sign in with security in Triage prior to being assigned to a room,sign a confidentiality agreement, and given a temporary hospital ID/access card. LE and Corrections must maintain constant supervision of the detainee/prisoner (must remain with them at all times)."
                  Just call me "Sir Robin"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by natedog54 View Post
                    EEP! I think you're right. The bottom line is, there is fairly specific criteria that pertains to using force against a patient. If the private guard happens to be sitting outside of the room, and observes a patient (other then the prisoner they are contracted to watch) becoming uncooperative and is escalating, the fear is that they may try to take matters into their own hands before we get called. They are not trained to do that.
                    Having been through private security training myself, I know that it is not usually as good as what we get at county, or what LEO's get. The reason is that it costs the private security company money, so they burn through it as fast as possible. Which makes some of the information hard to retain.

                    It'll be interesting to see what happens. I know one thought that is being kicked around is prohibiting private security companies from conducting business on the property. We'll see...
                    Hi Nate,

                    As a person very knowledgeable regarding MN firearm laws, I would like to weigh in on this.

                    First, I have to say, that sounds like a pretty irrational fear, and whether the security officer is armed or unarmed really isn't the issue. Why would they be any more likely to get involved with a "uncooperative patient" than anyone else at the hospital. If the security officer is contracted to guard a prisoner (which happens all the time) that is his/her sole purpose for being there.

                    Public or private officer's both have the same responsibility when it comes to protecting the public from the threat of an escaped felon.

                    I think the hospital trying to deny a private security officer from being armed, while undertaking the responsibility of maintaining custody of a felon is careless, and opens them up to liability if an escape were to occur or someone was injured by the felon.

                    Furthermore, there is the issue of Hennepin County following state law.

                    MN Statutes 624.714 and 471.633 establish exclusive control over the regulation of firearms. Counties may not exercise control.

                    MN statute 624.714

                    Subd. 17. Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person
                    or clothes under a permit or otherwise 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 fine for a first offense must not
                    exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision
                    is not subject to forfeiture.
                    (b) As used in this subdivision, the terms in this paragraph have the meanings given.
                    (1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:
                    (i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the
                    establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR)
                    BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; or
                    (ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are
                    prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.
                    (2) "Prominently" means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the
                    bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.
                    (3) "Conspicuous" means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height
                    against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.
                    (4) "Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned,
                    leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose.



                    Hennepin County Medical Center is a governmental entity, therefore they have no authority whatsoever to regulate firearms.

                    MN Statute 624.714

                    Subd. 23. Exclusivity. This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and
                    procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff,
                    police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or
                    body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement
                    these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.


                    I can fully understand HCMC not wanting gangbangers with guns in the hospital, but as a county government facility, they need to follow the law.

                    Law enforcement officers and even private security officers are authorized by state law to carry firearms at HCMC. For that matter, everyone who has a permit to carry a pistol is authorized to carry at HCMC.

                    We don't get to pick and choose which laws we like. But there are consequences for failure to obey them.

                    The down side for you is, Hennepin County is your employer, and they can prohibit you from carrying while on duty.

                    MN Statute 624.714

                    Subd. 18. Employers; public colleges and universities. (a) An employer, whether public or
                    private
                    , may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees
                    while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related civil sanctions may
                    be invoked for a violation.
                    (b) A public postsecondary institution regulated under chapter 136F or 137 may establish
                    policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its students while on the institution's
                    property. Academic sanctions may be invoked for a violation.
                    (c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), an employer or a postsecondary institution may
                    not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.



                    They can't legally prohibit you from leaving a gun in your vehicle.

                    MN Statute 471.633 restricts local governments from regulating firearms.

                    471.633 FIREARMS.
                    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
                    (Which HCMC is one of), to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the
                    complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:
                    (a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and
                    (b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.
                    Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.


                    The law is crystal clear, you may want to let your bosses know the facts before they end up in legal hot water.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for the clarification.
                      RIP Sgt. Joe Bergeron, We will surely miss you.

                      - EOW 5/1/2010 -

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks brindisi. That's what I was looking for.
                        Just call me "Sir Robin"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The BCA website isn't entirely accurate. I have made corrections in red.


                          Originally posted by BEK320 View Post
                          Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?

                          * School property Ok to carry in vehicle or outside vehicle for the purpose of placing the firearm in the trunk or retrieving it from trunk. (or rear compartment) Ok to carry anywhere on school grounds and building with permission from person in charge of facility

                          * A childcare center while children are present Ok with permission from center director.

                          * Public colleges and universities – may have policy restricting the carrying of weapons on their premises by employees and students while on campus this is accurate, not against law for student or staff to carry, only employment or academic sanctions are permitted.


                          * Private establishments that have posted a sign banning guns on their premises They really need to ask you to leave, and you not comply, before a violation occurs.


                          * 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 is employees Only employment sanctions are available, not a violation of law.


                          * State correctional facilities or state hospitals and grounds (MN Statute 243.55)


                          * Any jail, lockup or correctional facility (MN Statute 641.165)


                          * Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (MN Statute 609.66) Notified only, doesn't require permission.


                          * Offices and courtrooms of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals


                          * Any state building unless the commissioner of public safety is notified (MN Statute 609.66) Only applies to the State Capitol Complex.


                          * In a field while hunting big game by archery, except when hunting bear (MN Statute 97B.211)


                          * In federal court facilities or other federal facilities (Title 18 U.S.C.§ 930)

                          As Per the BCA website

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Also they changed the law as you can not ban licensed police officers who are carrying guns. In other words all those neat signs that say "Bans Guns" Blah Blah doesn't apply to peace officers on duty or off.
                            Happy to be here proud to serve

                            "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

                            Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well they never really did, because the signs were for permit holders and Police dont have permits.
                              The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5556 users online. 329 members and 5227 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X