The Empire Strikes Back

Print This Post

You may also like...

119 Responses

  1. Windypundit says:

    Damn, this was a well-written piece. You really took apart the case against Joel and explained what's so wrong and why it's important. Very cool.

  2. firehat says:

    I come to Popehat for trenchant observation, ruthless skewering of our betters, and wit, but this piece sets itself apart. Very good, Patrick!

  3. Patrick says:

    Ken deserves credit for the good parts.

  4. I remember reading Rosenberg's books when I was a kid. Kudos to him for standing up for his rights against these jackbooted thugs. I hope he wins a nice settlement and uses it to buy more guns.

  5. Rob says:

    Well written piece Patrick…

    A few corrections/clarifications:

    Concealed Carry
    Minnesota does not have a it is a "permit to carry". This is an important distinction, as some have already said that Rosenberg broke the law by not concealing on Nov. 5th. He did not. MN Statutes 624.714.

    Sheriff Notification
    Another issue is the warrant stated that they were not notified about Rosenberg's intent to carry that day. 2 issues stem from that…
    one of which being that I know for a fact, Joel has a letter on file with the HCSO stating his intent to carry. While not specific to a single date, it does not have to be.

    sub1g. (b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:

    (2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;

    Scope of Court Mandate
    This is a point of contention. 609.66 (Joel's Felony Charge) states it is a felony to carry at a "Court Complex", but does not specify what a "Court Complex" is… Chief Dolan's office is in City Hall, not in the Hennepin County Court House, and there a a couple of courtrooms in the building (That have their own security checkpoints) on separate floors. Judges can limit what goes on in their courtrooms, but not in offices in an entire different branch of the government.
    Felicia's Picture shows where the courthouse is (red) and city hall (green).
    http://www.ellegon.com/news/cityhall.jpg

    Legality of the Court Mandate
    This is IMHO, what is at the heart of the matter. According to MN Statutes 624.714 no governmental entity can restrict lawful carry.

    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'm not sure if the Judge in 2008 think of the court as an extra-governmental entity, or what, but this illegal mandate had not been challenged… until now.

    We don’t yet know if Joel has a legal defense fund. If he does, we’ll pass it on. We’ve offered free legal advice and assistance.

    Joel has quite possibly the best defense attorney in Minnesota, especially for gun related matters. David Gross is a former Minneapolis city attorney, has Hamline law professor Joe Olson on his speed-dial, and literally helped write and pass the permit to carry law, at a tremendous personal loss. Given that, I have a feeling (and this is purely my supposition) that David is working on "credit" and will collect big on a civil suit.

    Please offer your support through following and spreading the story — and, perhaps, through a citizen comment.

    Why do you have a link for people to contact the police here? The police have nothing to do with it at this point, If anybody, it's the city attorney, Charles Gerlach, that needs to be educated, but a massive call/email campaign can do more harm than good.
    The city's whole case is about contempt of cop, spamming the police will only piss them off more… I would encourage you to remove the email link…

    Once again, good article! Thanks!

  6. Patrick says:

    Thanks for the comment Rob.

    To address one of your questions (I may address others as time permits), I chose not to discuss the issue of the court order because it isn't germane, for the exact reason you say it isn't. But also, if past performance is my guide, because I know that a troll will appear at some point shouting:

    ROSENBERG VIOLATED A KOURT ORDER!!!

    At which point I had planned to point out that the court is without authority to modify this statute. I don't know much about Minnesota law, but I know quite a bit about internet trolls.

    Oh well. That trap is sprung.

  7. Rob says:

    Fair enough… Sorry I stole your thunder! :)

  8. Chris says:

    I live in Minneapolis, and I'm distinctly on the other side of politics from Joel, so hopefully I can get some attention from other people who might not normally be inclined to help.

  9. Chris says:

    Boy, that sounded vague and stupid. What I mean is that I'll make a bit of a fuss on the other side of the aisle.

  10. Patrick says:

    I'm sure Joel would appreciate any help that anyone can give him, and short of help with bail or legal fees, getting word of this travesty out is the best help one can give to him Chris.

  11. DMG says:

    Excellent writeup. This is why I keep coming here.

  12. aczarnowski says:

    Thanks for the great post guys. My wife and I are both thankful for Joel, in all his oddity, yet have no leverage against the empire. Even my T62 is in the shop right now. It's nice to see additional light shining into the dark corners around here.

  13. valhawk says:

    The actions of the state officials in this matter are a shocking breach of the public trust, and a clear violation of Mr. Rosenberg's civil rights under the color of law.

    If I had my way, I would fire and blacklist: officer Palmer, every one of his supervisors up to and including the chief of police. Then I would have the judge who set this extremely excessive bail removed from the bench and disbarred.

    This is yet another example on why sovereign immunity needs to end. In the end, it will be the taxpayers of Minneapolis who end of paying for the fact that officer Parker is a brutish thug, and it seems highly likely that he, as many other corrupt police officers, will not receive any discipline for his patently illegal acts.

  14. hawkhead says:

    It's galling enough that Rosenberg was arrested and thrown in jail for complying with every jot and tittle of Minnesota's carry laws.

    It's even worse that, when he wins his eventual lawsuit, I will be paying a chunk of his award, while Bill Palmer won't have to cough up a dime.

  15. William Lafferty says:

    I'm not conversant with Minnesota law, but I am a lawyer, and I would be surprised if sovereign immunity had anything to do with this case. 42 USC 1983 prohibits the deprivation of anyone's constitutional right under color of law. This is a federal statute and it applies to virtually everyone, including police, though probably not to judges operating within the parameters of their judicial function. Furthermore, municipalities under this statute may be sued for injunctive relief and damages. The point is that we are not helpless at the hands of police. See my book They Came For Our Guns, They Came For Our Freedom for development of that ideal.

    Thanks for the comment Mr. Lafferty. Unfortunately we don't allow commercial links in our comments. – Ed.

  16. Paul A'Barge says:

    When you shove your fist into the lion's mouth, don't act surprised that there are teeth marks on your arm when you remove your fist.

  17. pipedreams says:

    Scary stuff.
    But I wonder what Scott Greenfield means by " But then, some carry a gun to make them a man, rather than the other way around."
    Some carry men to make them guns? Some men carry guns to make them …?

  18. Mike says:

    Sovereign immunity might not apply, but qualified immunity will. The cop will claim that he had a court order prohibiting Joel's conduct, and this the cop simply made a good-faith mistake of law. Minnesota is located within the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and so there are many three-judge panels that will excuse the cop's misconduct under qualified immunity.

  19. Stephen says:

    I am in Fox 9's viewing area and sent them a note about the article and how I expected more out of my news agency along with links to all the blogs doing the legal analysis. Maybe their investigative team will look into it. I can dream…

  20. bobby b says:

    An "odd duck"?

    C'mon.

    You know how some people's minds are just a bit too agile and explorative to allow their owners to sit around, watch TV, and do the things all of those "normal ducks" do?

    Maybe in that sense your "odd duck" characterization works. Sure doesn't seem to otherwise.

  21. valhawk says:

    My reference to sovereign immunity was a typo, I meant qualified immunity. I am angry because the taxpayers of Minneapolis will be the ones to pay for the the officer in question's thugishness, and that it is highly unlikely he will be penalized in any form either through a suit directed at him or through disciplinary action.

    It has become clear that police departments and prosecutors offices are either unwilling or unable to discipline their own, so until qualified immunity as a defense against civil claims is ended, police and prosecutors will face no discipline for their bad acts. Qualified immunity must be ended immediately lest the police and prosecutors continue to slide into more and more regular illegal and thugish behavior without rebuke.

  22. Boo Who? says:

    Well, this will show those bastards to mess with this guy. Of course in the long run it could just put him in jail and his wife and kid on the street. But, he did what was right! That is the most important thing! And best of all it will only cost him and the tax payers money. So its win/win for us.

  23. Patrick says:

    Rosa Parks says you can take your seat in the back of the bus, white boy.

  24. Scott Jacobs says:

    Yes, how very dare he expect to be unmolested when he doesn't break the law.

  25. Scott Jacobs says:

    Upon looking at some of the info-links, it appears that in trying to obtain the documents relating to the bogus charges against SWMBO, one of the people who got the request was none other than Officer Palmer.

    Officer Palmer tried to collect a fee for those documents.

    Guess what part of what I just wrote isn't legal…

  26. jgreene says:

    This criminal behaviour by the Minneapolis Police Department and other police departments has to STOP! There is a similar case in NJ now that is being directly addressed by the Governor of selective prosecution for LEGAL GUN POSSESSION.

  27. Brian Dunbar says:

    I have it on good authority that someone from the Minneapolis Police Department is trolling our comments, and others.

    Really?

    Hey, guys from MPD: Lucas Davenport is a fictional character. You can't be him, so knock it off.

  28. Brian says:

    "DESCRIBE BEHAVIOR" is a place holder that is to be deleted and the officer then describes the behavior that constitutes contempt of court.

  29. Scott Jacobs says:

    Dear Boo Who,

    Fuck you, Pig. Why don't you go eat a hot bowl of dicks.

    Warmest Possible Regards,

    Scott Jacobs (who will never visit your city)

  30. Scott Jacobs says:

    Also, +1 internet to Brian for the Davenport reference.

  31. bobby b says:

    1. (Part of 588.01): When it is a constructive contempt, it must appear that the right or remedy of a party to an action or special proceeding was defeated or prejudiced by it before the contempt can be punished by imprisonment or by a fine exceeding $50.

    Seems to be a hinderance.

    2). Never have I encountered a claim by the police that a judge could issue an Order out of the blue, direct it at no one in particular, serve it on no one at all, and then hold someone in contempt later for failing to obey that order. A judge cannot prospectively legislate by simply calling every offense a contempt.

    3). Someone should be checking to see if all of JR's cars have current tabs, that his house is free of code violation notices, that his guns are all stored legally . . . it always strikes me as coincidentally hilarious when the cops discover a ton of other violations right when an incident of citizen harassment is hitting its peak. Since so many of these ironic offenses seem to involve unprovable he-said-she-said allegations, it would also be smart for JR to move about in public with another person always at hand, to act as his witness when the five cops claim he was urinating on the Mayor.

  32. Steve Wiese says:

    Joel was my first CCW instructor back when the MN law was first passed. He has the distinction of being (as I recall) the only person to successfully pursue being granted a permit to carry in Hennepin County before the law was passed, back when the law was "may issue" rather than "shall issue".

  33. Ken says:

    An “odd duck”?

    C’mon.

    You know how some people’s minds are just a bit too agile and explorative to allow their owners to sit around, watch TV, and do the things all of those “normal ducks” do?

    Maybe in that sense your “odd duck” characterization works. Sure doesn’t seem to otherwise.

    “DESCRIBE BEHAVIOR” is a place holder that is to be deleted and the officer then describes the behavior that constitutes contempt of court.

    If we successfully take down The Man, it's not going to be through widespread good reading comprehension.

  34. Scott Jacobs says:

    Ken,

    I like, then, that they didn't even list what they think he did. Wouldn't that make it invalid?

  35. Jdog says:

    Adhering — for the nonce, at least — to the legal advice of counsel and the counsel of friends who know about this stuff, I'm largely going to shut up about this thing for awhile, other than to say that 1: I'm inutterably grateful for the support and that, 2: yeah, I did marry above my station.

    Steve's got it mostly right — back in 1999, when permits were issued at the almost unfettered whim of police chiefs, and my renewal was denied (on the grounds that my stalker hadn't yet killed me), David Gross and I (well, David; I was just along for the ride) took Chief Olson of the MPD to court, where the judge decided that almost unfettered didn't mean utterly unfettered, and ordered my permit reissued immediately. "Today. Now."

    I wasn't quite the only person to ever have that happen, but there were very few of us, and I think I was the only person to ever have an unlimited permit reissued over a denial by the MPD.

    (In 2003, the legislature took away the issuing/denial authority from the Chiefs and gave it to the sheriffs, who, largely, have done a much better job.)

  36. Chris says:

    OK, everyone. Joel's out. You can call off the snow protest now.

  37. Crafty Hunter says:

    The pigvermin in this country have made it crystal clear that they intend to do exactly what they want to do, including murdering and railroading citizens at will, treating the laws as Cop Protection Acts with no other real meaning.

    It's becoming increasingly clear that 1776 will have to be repeated, in a big way.

  38. Karl says:

    Thank you for taking the time to write this story, and kudos to Rosenberg for taking this as far as it needs to go. One has to wonder how many citizens are abused but don't fight back. Obviously MPD has circled the wagons and thrown "Serve and Protect" out the window. Regardless of the outcome, we know who stands where.

    Karl

  39. Jdog says:

    Thanks, guys. Just in case anybody who cares hasn't heard: I'm out on bail; an angel put up the bond to get me out on "unrestricted restricted" bail, where I am allowed to go home and live with my family. I'm resting comfortably, and working on getting my health back.

    I don't have the words to express the depth of my appreciation to the Popehat guys and all the others who have been so very supportive in this, but I'll try to come up with some.

  40. Keep fighting the good fight, Joel – I don't know that I'd have the courage to really stand up for what's right, but I can at least cheer on the ones who do. I hope you get your health under control quickly and that your crusade is extremely successful.

  41. Don in Boston says:

    Full faith and credit?

    Have Joel get his gun license authenticated per 28 USC s.1738 so the public ACT of the gun license statute will be given full faith and creidt in Minnesota.

    And this wil also allow carry in every other state.

  42. Patrick says:

    No it won't.

  43. SPQR says:

    Don's very confused.

  44. Jag says:

    Big fan of Joel's work and now for what he is doing. Support to him and his family. Thanks to Joel for having the guts to do what most of us only dream about.

  45. Boo Who? says:

    Instead of you Freedom Writers worrying about his legal problems you should worry about his mental and physical problems. He may not live long enough to see the outcome of his good deed.

  46. Patrick says:

    Is that a threat, officer?

  47. DiMono says:

    Looks like a threat to me.

  48. SPQR says:

    Boo Who seems to like thugging it up.

  49. Scott Jacobs says:

    Don in Boston,

    You just try that in Illinois. Promise to call me so I can be there with a camera when the cops slam you to the ground.

  50. Scott Jacobs says:

    @SPQR

    Well, whoever it is is, after all, a Minneapolis cop…

  51. SPQR says:

    Scott, and yet he reminds me of a couple of local cops here, I've had the pleasure to depose …

  52. Justthisguy says:

    I wonder why I haven't seen anything about this at Jerry Pournelle's site. He and Joel correspond all the time..

  53. Paul says:

    Ummmm, there is an important fact missing here. Permission is given by the Sheriff's office in WRITING. Walking up to a building with signs on it that say "no guns" and saying "but the sheriff told me I could" is not going to cut it. How would officers at the courthouse know of a phone call to a different organization? They wouldn't. That's why it's done in writing, by certified mail.

    Why would someone need to carry a gun in the courthouse anyway? This stinks of someone doing this with the intent of causing a ruckus, which he did.

    However, with these facts considered…the cops actually cut him a break by not arresting him.

  54. Patrick says:

    They did arrest him Paul. The statute doesn't call for written permission. Rosenberg says he can prove he did have permission. There may be written permission. I'm not inclined to trust the word of an arresting officer who gets a warrant on the basis of DESCRIBE CONDUCT.

    How now, brown cow?

  55. Paul says:

    "They did arrest him Paul."

    Not at the courthouse they didn't.

    "The statute doesn’t call for written permission. Rosenberg says he can prove he did have permission. There may be written permission. I’m not inclined to trust the word of an arresting officer who gets a warrant on the basis of DESCRIBE CONDUCT.

    How now, brown cow?"

    The Department of Public Safety has no record of any notice provided by Mr Rosenberg. Furthermore, the Court Security Unit also has no record. Permission would have been granted IN WRITING via CERTIFIED MAIL.

    Does anyone with any reasoning ability actually think that simply walking up and saying "hey, they told me I could" is appropriate or logical?

  56. Rob says:

    "Permission would have been granted IN WRITING via CERTIFIED MAIL."

    NO… It would not have been…. PERMISSION is not needed…. Just notice.

    Joel has proof of notice…. so it's a non-issue.

    Whether or not you think it's logical is irrelevant. Joel followed the law.

  57. Patrick says:

    Are you personally involved in this case Paul? I'd be happy to interview you if the DA allows it.

    Otherwise, I'm left with the DESCRIBE BEHAVIOR affidavit, and the word of a notoriously corrupt police department.

  58. CTrees says:

    @Paul:

    "Permission would have been granted IN WRITING via CERTIFIED MAIL."

    "The statute doesn’t call for written permission"

    ??

  59. SPQR says:

    Ah, now Patrick, the MPD visitors are just here to DESCRIBE CONDUCT, and to help us understand their contribution to our civil society by their DESCRIBE CONDUCT. Not to mention their adherence to the rule of law by DESCRIBE CONDUCT.

  60. Brian Dunbar says:

    Permission would have been granted IN WRITING via CERTIFIED MAIL.

    Is this written down somewhere?

  61. Patrick says:

    Actually Paul, look at the damned statute.

    It says holders of a permit who notify the Sheriff. It doesn't even say that the Sheriff has to grant permission. It merely says that he has to be notified.

  62. Paul says:

    It's written here that they respond in writing.

    http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e10/5729962.0.pdf

    It seems to me that following a poorly written statute when simple logic would allow one to conclude that the encounter would be problematic is not too smart. If I could find some loophole in a statute somewhere that could be construed to indicate it's OK to punch an officer in the face, should I go do it?

    I'm curious…what was the necessity of carrying a firearm into the courthouse?

  63. Paul says:

    Looks to me like you're all reading the wrong part of the law.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66

    "Subd. 1g.Felony; possession in courthouse or certain state buildings. (a) A person who commits either of the following acts is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:

    (b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:

    (1) licensed peace officers or military personnel who are performing official duties;

    (2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;

    (3) persons who possess dangerous weapons for the purpose of display as demonstrative evidence during testimony at a trial or hearing or exhibition in compliance with advance notice and safety guidelines set by the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety; or

    (4) persons who possess dangerous weapons in a courthouse complex with the express consent of the county sheriff or who possess dangerous weapons in a state building with the express consent of the commissioner of public safety."

    You all seem to be reading (2) as the relevant section, regarding notice. However, section (4) is the relevant section and it clearly says "EXPRESS CONSENT." Also, this section covers both courthouses and state buildings. There is some vagueness over which of these the location Mr Rosenberg went to is. However, it is certainly one or the other, and this section requires express consent for either.

  64. Ken says:

    Paul, I don't see why (b)(2) wouldn't control. Joel has a permit. He gave notice. That satisfies (b)(2). If you read (b)(2) to require express consent, the way (b)(4) does, then (b)(2) becomes meaningless: if you have express consent, then (b)(4) allows you to have the gun in the courthouse whether or not you have a permit. (b)(2) and (b)(4) are separate sections. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that statutes should be read to give each section effect and not to read a section out of the statute.

    I’m curious…what was the necessity of carrying a firearm into the courthouse?

    What's the point of exercising any statutory or civil right?

  65. Scott Jacobs says:

    "I’m curious…what was the necessity of carrying a firearm into the courthouse?"

    I'm sure we could tell you…

    IF HE WAS IN THE COURTHOUSE, YOU MENDACIOUS CUNT!

  66. Scott Jacobs says:

    Dear Paul (hereafter referred to as "you fucking cock-mongering pile of shit"),

    You quoted the following:

    (2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;

    You then said "The Department of Public Safety has no record of any notice provided by Mr Rosenberg. Furthermore, the Court Security Unit also has no record."

    Well, if he told the Sheriff, they wouldn't have a record, would they, you fucking cock-mongering pile of shit.

  67. Rob says:

    Paul, Have any experience reading the law? It's so easy a caveman can do it.

    609.66 1g (b) … this subdivision does not apply to:
    (1)
    (2)
    (3)
    (4)

    Each one of those items are exclusionary criteria… if you had to meet more than one of the criteria, it would have "AND".

  68. PLW says:

    Looks to me like (4) is there for people who don't have " a permit issued under section 624.714" but have obtained express permission from the sheriff.

  69. Brian Dunbar says:

    @ Paul
    It’s written here that they respond in writing.

    I know that. Sorry if my words were not clear. Let me rephrase.

    Every government operation I've been involved with – Marines, RTC, FDIC – has written procedures. If the response of Unit A to input X is to write a certified letter saying 'no way in hell, Jack' then that will be in a binder.

    In my experience, if it's not in a binder, it's not SOP, it's just some jack wagon making stuff up so he doesn't have to be inconvenienced.

    Is it written SOP that the Court Services Division Commander or the Court Security Unit Commander responds to notice to carry a concealed firearm through certified mail?

  70. Brian Dunbar says:

    I’m curious…what was the necessity of carrying a firearm into the courthouse?

    There are some of us who feel that the Bill of Rights is less guidance, to be discarded when inconvenient, and more of a firm list of 'thou shall nots' directed at the government.

  71. SPQR says:

    Obviously in Minneapolis, felonies depend upon the redefinition of the word "OR" to mean "AND". The MPD owns the dictionary in their mind.

  72. Paul says:

    Hey Scott, Mr. Mature Name-caller. Read it. The Sheriff hands the notice off to one of those two offices. Sheesh. Learn the process before you make yourself look dumb calling someone names.

    And the reason section 4 is the relevant one is because it is the one talking about courthouses and state buildings.

  73. Patrick says:

    No Paul.

    The offense is to: "possess a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse complex "

    All of the listed exceptions apply to the offense.

    This isn't hard. Why are you making it hard?

    Now, Scott.

    Please limit the expletives. It doesn't help the forces of good. I let that slide when I read it earlier because I was a sleepwalking zombie, and you're a longtime, valued commenter, so …

    'nuff said.

  74. Rob says:

    It's called trolling Patrick… and we're biting… (sigh)

  75. SPQR says:

    It is pretty hilarious that "Paul" could successfully copy a statute but can't read one competently.

  76. Scott Jacobs says:

    Sorry Patrick…

    Though if I'm "Valued", you might wanna take a long, hard look at your life, and try and figure out exactly where you went wrong. :)

    @Paul – I am expressing to you the exact level of maturity you deserve, as you have clearly displayed a gross inability to read a statute.

    Where, exactly (and I mean link me to the frelling words) does it say the Sheriff will "pass it along"?

    And why, exactly, do you trust a department that has proven to be inept and dishonest (in the case of SHMBO, and in the arrest warrant) to be truthful about whatever documents they might have regarding such a thing?

    The statute requires Joel notify the Sheriff. He did so, and apparently has proof of such. What further steps are involved are not his concern, nor sis he liable for a paperwork failure. He completed his required task, and claims to be able to prove it.

  77. Rob says:

    I have 2 theories as to the reason for the charges…

    1) The reason the arrest warrant states that DPS and Court Security didn't have the notice is because they didn't. As we all know, the statute only requires NOTIFICATION, not permission. (You need permission if you don't have a permit).
    A while ago, I sent off my certified letter to Rich Stanek (Hennepin County Sheriff) stating my intent to carry whenever on Court Premises. Shortly thereafter I got a letter (not certified) stating Judge Swensen's order banning guns regardless of permit.
    It stands to reason that Stanek would not be notifying DPS or Security, because he has already informed the person they cannot carry… ON COURT PREMISES… (Which does not included executive, and legislative offices)

    That really doesen't matter, as the requirement to notify had been made.

    2) Stanek forwarded the notice, and the court security didn't bother to keep track of it, because it was an indefinite notice, and not set for a specific day. (It does not have to be)
    I wouldn't expect court security to keep these records up, as it had never presented an issue.

    Either way, notice was satisfied, and the Felony charge is invalid.

  78. Ancient Woodsman says:

    It bothers me here as it always has that both zombies and tyrants seem to think that free men need a reason to do anything.

    "I’m curious…what was the necessity of carrying a firearm into the courthouse?"

    Why would a free man need to explain – or even have – a necesssity for owning or carrying a firearm? Maybe no reason at all. He just wanted to. Period.

  79. Paul says:

    "Where, exactly (and I mean link me to the frelling words) does it say the Sheriff will “pass it along”?"

    It is apparently difficult for you to follow more than one link at a time.

    http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e10/5729962.0.pdf

    read the second paragraph on page 2.

  80. Patrick says:

    Paul.

    Answer the questions about the statute.

    Admit you got it wrong, which will enhance your credibility quite a bit, or give us a plausible alternative reading without commenting on others' reading capacity. I realize you've been insulted here for your own lack of reading capacity, but you're a newbie and this can be a rough neighborhood to newbies. And frankly your reading of the statute is so off that you've made a serious mistake, or you're a troll, or a genius.

    Convince me you're a genius, or at least honest enough to admit you made a mistake in your reading of the statute.

    And then we can talk. Otherwise, we won't talk any longer. I'm happy to have you insist I'm a censor or incapable of taking criticism or narrow-minded or intolerant or an asshole, because I've grown tolerant of such accusations over several years of blogging, because they're all true.

    So, answer the questions about the statute. Or don't.

  81. Ken says:

    And the reason section 4 is the relevant one is because it is the one talking about courthouses and state buildings.

    That's nonsensical. Subdivision 1g is all about courthouses and state buildings. See 1g(a)(1) and (2). Subdivision 1g(b) is only about exceptions to 1g(a), and therefore also entirely about courthouses and government buildings. 1g(b)(2) applies to people with carry permits, and 1g(b)(4) refers to people who get permission. The reason 1g(b)(4) mentions courthouses and other government buildings is to distinguish who needs to give written permission to enter them, respectively, for that particular exception to apply. 1g(b)(2) conveys the same idea (different structures require communication with different people) by saying that notice must be given to the Sheriff or Public Safety Commissioner as appropriate.

    The legislature knows how to require written permission rather than notice. They did it in 1g(b)(4). If they meant 1g(b)(2) to require it, they would have put it there as well.

    Also, your link doesn't work, at least for me.

  82. Paul says:

    "Subdivision 1g is all about courthouses and state buildings. See 1g(a)(1) and (2). Subdivision 1g(b) is only about exceptions to 1g(a), and therefore also entirely about courthouses and government buildings."

    if that is the case, then why do both 2 AND 4 exist? if all four sections are about courthouses and government buildings, then you could take the word "courthouse" and the phrase "state building" out and it then appears to somewhat contradict 2.

    considering 4 is the more specific, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider it the section that applies here?

  83. Paul says:

    Here is a question to look at how you all read the four sections.

    Look at 2 and 3. If you have a permit under 624.714 which is covered by 2, then does that mean you don't have to comply with "advance notice and safety guidelines set by the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety" as set out in 3?

    if the answer is no, then you can't say that 4 can be ignored in favor of 2, either.

  84. Paul says:

    If we conclude that 2 and 4 are contradictory or overlapping, then wouldn't this apply:

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=645.26

    "When, in the same law, several clauses are irreconcilable, the clause last in order of date or position shall prevail."

    That would mean 4 prevails.

  85. Patrick says:

    Paul, exclusion 2 doesn't limit itself to a state building that isn't a courthouse.

    This isn't legal work Paul. It's diagramming a sentence.

  86. Ken says:

    f that is the case, then why do both 2 AND 4 exist? if all four sections are about courthouses and government buildings, then you could take the word “courthouse” and the phrase “state building” out and it then appears to somewhat contradict 2.

    No, it doesn't. 2 applies to people with permits. 4 applies to anyone, permit or not, who gets permission. I suppose if you had a permit AND got permission, you could be covered under both 2 and 4. But by their plain language they cover different categories.

    considering 4 is the more specific, wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider it the section that applies here?

    No. 4 is not "more specific." 4 has different requirements. Nor is 2 "more specific" because it requires a permit. They address different sets of requirements.

    Look at 2 and 3. If you have a permit under 624.714 which is covered by 2, then does that mean you don’t have to comply with “advance notice and safety guidelines set by the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety” as set out in 3?

    No. You seem to be reading the subsections of 1g(b) as if they were connected by AND. They aren't. It wouldn't make any sense if they were. Unless you really think that the statute means you can't have the gun in the building unless you are a licensed peace officer in the course of duties AND you have a permit and have given notice AND are only using the gun as evidence in a case and have given advance notice and followed safety guidelines AND have gotten advanced written permission. That makes no sense. For one thing, it would mean that a cop can't wear a gun in unless he was only using it for evidence in a case and give notice and got written permission.

    “When, in the same law, several clauses are irreconcilable, the clause last in order of date or position shall prevail.”

    No. Because they aren't reconcilable. They are perfectly reconcilable. One applies to people with permits, one applies to people without permits. By your logic, the following would be irreconcilable:

    "The following people may carry a gun into a courthouse:
    1. A member of the police department,
    2. A member of the court security staff,
    3. A member of the Sheriff's department,
    4. A federal law enforcement officer testifying in a case."

    By your reading, that would be irreconcilable and only a federal law enforcement officer testifying in a criminal case could carry a gun. That ain't right.

  87. SPQR says:

    Paul, all you need to do is learn the meaning of the word "or".

    That's it.

  88. Paul says:

    Wouldn't it ALWAYS be illegal to carry a weapon without a permit?

  89. Patrick says:

    No.

    There isn't a Minnesota statute I'm aware of that requires a permit, ALWAYS, to carry a weapon.

    This is a statute about carrying weapons in courthouses.

    Paul, your IP address shows that you're in Chicago. (I checked because I was sure you were another Minneapolis cop.) Chicago is great, and so it may be news to you, but the Supreme Court just overturned your city's gun law.

  90. Paul says:

    "Paul, all you need to do is learn the meaning of the word “or”."

    Thanks, I understand the meaning of that word. It's not relevant to my point.

    Look at it this way. Since it starts out "possession in courthouse or certain state buildings" then 2 can be construed as being written: "persons who carry pistols [in a courthouse or certain state buildings] according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate"

    With 4 specifically stating courthouses and state buildings, how are they not both applicable? It would seem that if you have a permit, 4 would NEVER apply, so why is it written?

  91. SPQR says:

    No, Paul, it wouldn't if Minnesota allows open carry, which I am of the impression that it does.

  92. SPQR says:

    The only reason that the meaning of "or" is not relevant to your point is because you seem to be ignoring its existance in the statute itself.

  93. Matt G says:

    Very, very good piece. "Contempt of Cop" does exist, and good law enforcement officers do their best to distance from even the appearance of it.

  94. Patrick says:

    Because the sheriff can grant permission to people who don't have permits, Paul.

  95. Rob says:

    What a magnificent troll….. He's really got us going….

    I hope to God that Paul is a troll…. If people that stupid actually existed, I would loose all hope in mankind.

  96. Paul says:

    "Because the sheriff can grant permission to people who don’t have permits, Paul."

    So you can carry a firearm in Minnesota without going through the regular channels of getting a permit? Does the statute covering permits defer to this?

  97. AM says:

    Paul,

    If you were a firearms expert, say a WWII historian, and your expertise as a witness for either the prosecution or defense was needed, you could arrange to have a portion of your collection brought into the courtroom or state building for the purpose of participation in trial.

    None of these firearms would be "evidence" because they were not used in a crime. They would simply be reference points for an expert witness.

    That is the reason behind section 4. For people who don't have permits who have any conceivable reason to bring any sort of firearm to a state building or courthouse.

    Another example would be an out of state firearms trainer who does not have an MN permit. The Sheriff would grant permission to bring his firearms needed to train LEO's to the appropriate state building, whether that was a Police Academy or other official building.

    There are a lot of reasons to carry a firearm, and the law was written to allow broad interpretation as to not abridge civil liberties. Heck, even if for Veterans Day the American Legion put up a static display of WWI era weapons in the lobby of the courthouse under glass, it would still need permission.

    Good luck in your quest for understanding.

  98. Ken says:

    With 4 specifically stating courthouses and state buildings, how are they not both applicable? It would seem that if you have a permit, 4 would NEVER apply, so why is it written?

    Because not everyone has a permit, and the Legislature thought there might be circumstances where someone didn't have a permit but might have a legitimate need to carry inside these particular buildings?

    So you can carry a firearm in Minnesota without going through the regular channels of getting a permit? Does the statute covering permits defer to this?

    No, Paul. Because the exceptions in g1(b) are not exceptions to all laws everywhere. They are only exceptions to g1(a), which defines one specific felony, for carrying a gun in specific places. g1 is not a statute purporting to create gun rights. g1 is a criminal statute defining a crime, with exceptions.

    This is really not complicated statutory analysis.

  99. Scott Jacobs says:

    Apparently it is, Ken.

  100. Ken says:

    Also, please note that the exception in 1g(b)(2) applies only to pistols, which require a permit to be carried in a public place in MN (with certain exceptions).

    1g(b)(4) applies to the category of "dangerous weapons", which has a considerably broader definition and includes, for instance, long guns.

    So it would be a felony to carry a shotgun into a courthouse under 1g(a) unless you met one of the exceptions of 1g(b). You couldn't meet the exception of 1g(b)(2), because that exception only applies to pistols and requires a permit under 624.714, which only applies to pistols. However, you could get permission under 1g(b)(4), which expressly applies to the broader category of "dangerous weapons" (including shotguns).

    Again — this is not complex statutory analysis, Paul.

  101. Ancient Woodsman says:

    I'm still wating for Paul (Helmke?) to explain the 'necessity' bit.

    I just can't fathom why a free person should have to explain the 'need' for a firearm. What does 'need' or 'necessity' have to do with anything?

    C'mon Paul, it can't be that difficult. Why the focus on 'necessity'? Why should a free person need to prove 'necessity' to exercise a right? I really don't get your angle here. Please explain.

    Anything?

  102. C Sherman says:

    I'm not an attorney, so bear with me….

    Paul, prior to the discussion shifting focus to his flawed interpretation of the statute, insisted that because the Court Security Officer didn't know about the notification of the Sheriff, it didn't happen. I assume he refers to an internal SOP of some kind, but he cites the actual arrest warrant used. Regardless, there are two significant flaws in his reasoning.

    First, the statute only requires notification of the Sheriff. Mr. Rosenburg did that, and has evidence that he did so. He satisfied the requirements of the statute, and was therefore in compliance when he entered whatever sort of governmental building he was in. Whether the Court Security Officer new of it is irrelevant. Whether the internal SOP (request is forwarded to Court Security Office who then sends a copy of arguably illegal Court policy) is followed or not, the requirement of the statute was met.

    Second, Paul seems to consider the Court Security and a Judge's policy as equivalent to statute. As I read it, the Permit to Carry law limits police and governmental officials from imposing more stringent requirements on permit holders. In this respect, I question whether a Judge can establish any policy for the Court that prohibits weapons otherwise legally carried under the applicable statute. Under these conditions, I wonder if that portion of the arrest warrant can even be considered valid when subjected to judicial review. (In truth, that policy sounds a lot like a Court Security "here-sir-sign-this" suggestion.) What happens if the arrest warrant is found to be improper or at odds with existing statute?

    C

  103. Goober says:

    I'm not sure that Paul is trying to be dense, i think he is just failing to see the obvious because of a mental block. We've all done it. I'll try to be less lawyerly about it and more layman-ey and see if it helps.

    Paul, I can understand why you are confused about 2 and 4, because you are trying to conflate a requirement that isn't there – that all people have to meet all of these requirements to carry in a courthouse.

    However, you, yourself has said that this doesn't make any sense because these things are mutually exclusive of each other.

    4 does not apply because it deals specifically with someone who isn't a concealed permit holder in MN. I can think of several reasons that this would occur – a firearms expert carrying weapons into the courthouse for a demonstration when these weapons are not specifically evidence as they are demonstrating some quality of the weapon. An un-permitted individual who wants to open-carry in the courthouse. An example above was good, a VFW display case with period specific firearms. All of these could be reasons that an un-permitted individual would carry weapons into a courthouse orcivic building. This does not apply in this case because the guy had a permit.

    2 is the one that applies in this case because the guy had a permit. He met the requirements of 2. He has broken no law.

  1. December 10, 2010

    [...] I had to confess that I had not been keeping up with it, sadly. However, Popehat has decided to bring the noise in their usual inimitable way; I tip my hat to Patrick (and Ken, who Patrick says is responsible for "the good [...]

  2. December 10, 2010

    [...] Joel Rosenberg arrested for daring question the man. [...]

  3. December 10, 2010

    [...] The persecution of Joel Rosenberg.  [...]

  4. December 10, 2010

    [...] The persecution of Joel Rosenberg. [...]

  5. December 10, 2010

    [...] Popehat: The Empire Strikes Back [...]

  6. December 10, 2010

    [...] authorities he would be carrying before he entered the building as required by law. [3] (Update: Popehat's writeup of the story is well worth the read as [...]

  7. December 10, 2010

    [...] seems to be some dispute as to whether the office was notified. Rosenberg and his wife said they called. The warrant issued says there was never notification. If someone wanted to challenge this [...]

  8. December 10, 2010

    [...] Contempt of Cop. Free Joel Rosenberg. Or the best title, The Empire Strikes Back. [...]

  9. December 11, 2010

    [...] Moore to a fat farm, more innocent people to jail for daring to expose police abuse and for standing up for their rights, a socialist is causing trouble in the Senate, Joe Miller is done whether he likes it or not, and [...]

  10. December 11, 2010

    [...] think that Joel Rosenberg would [...]

  11. December 12, 2010

    [...] As articulated by Patrick at POPEHAT POPEHAT- “Minneapolis City Hall hosts a small claims court, which bears about as much relation to what [...]

  12. December 12, 2010

    [...] police arrest author-blogger-gun rights activist Joel Rosenberg [Popehat, Mark Bennett, Scott [...]

  13. December 15, 2010

    [...] think that Joel Rosenberg would [...]

  14. December 30, 2010

    [...] letter of the law, went out of his way to conform to the regulations of what is demanded of him, and was arrested anyway. I am not alone. Other bloggers are coming to his defense. They are keeping on top of things. [...]

  15. June 3, 2011

    [...] by way of Popehat: Joel Rosenberg, author and firearms rights advocate, died yesterday. Condolences to his [...]