|
|
|
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:21 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
| Author |
Message |
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Define "brandishing"  Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:44 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 1263
Location: MN
|
|
My husband, who just finished POST training for Minnesota, informs me that simply open carrying a firearm can be considered brandishing.
1. Is brandishing objectively defined in the law, or is it up to the personal interpretation of each officer?
2. What's the penalty for brandishing?
3. How long can police keep your firearm if they take it during a stop?
I'd equally appreciate posted answers or pointers to online resources. (Or Joel's book, actually...if the answer is in there, I'll search the house for it.)
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Lawyer_in_Training
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:23 am |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:28 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
|
He's wrong.
The word "brandish" appears just twice in Minnesota law:
1. In 609.66:
Quote: whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a dangerous weapon or uses or brandishes a replica firearm or a BB gun while knowingly on school property is guilty of a felony As you can see, that applies only to fake guns. 2. In 609.713, terroristic threats: Quote: Whoever displays, exhibits, brandishes, or
otherwise employs a replica firearm or a BB gun in a threatening manner, may be sentenced to
imprisonment for not more than one year and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than
$3,000, or both, if, in doing so, the person either:
(1) causes or attempts to cause terror in another person; or
(2) acts in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror in another person. Open carry is perfectly legal, with a permit, and no official may interfere with legal carry with a permit ( 624.714, Subd. 23, Exclusivity).
Threatening someone, whether with a gun or not, may be assault. In the absence of an overt or implied threat, open carry CANNOT in itself be a crime.
I'd be interested to know who in his training is feeding him that bullshit. Can he show you class materials which assert this falsehood?
_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:37 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 1263
Location: MN
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: I'd be interested to know who in his training is feeding him that bullshit. Can he show you class materials which assert this falsehood? I'd bet on one or more of his skills instructors. He's come home with some attitudes about how to treat legally carrying permit holders that I find a bit worrisome. I'm not sure how much of these attitudes are beneficial for survival as a LEO and how many are unnecessary personal prejudices passed on as gospel by instructors.
I'd be willing to PM you the school he attended.
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:09 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
|
|
Sure. Better yet would be convincing the husband to ask his instructor(s) for the statutory basis for that assertion.
No offense to your husband -- he has you, so he knows better -- but I can't tell you how fucking thrilled I am to hear about the next generation of cops being taught to disregard the law.
_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:26 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 1263
Location: MN
|
I think he has some internal conflict right now about what he's been taught. I'll have to see whether he can remember where the information came from.
I'm not going to let this slide. He'll be properly educated whether he likes it or not. 
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:37 am |
|
| Wise Elder |
 |
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
|
There is no "brandishing" crime in Minnesota with respect to real guns.
Short of felony Assault in the Second Degree (ADW), the closest Minnesota offenses are these two misdemeanors in Minn. Stat. sec. 609.66:
Quote: Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):
(1) recklessly handles or uses a gun or other dangerous weapon or explosive so as to endanger the safety of another; or
(2) intentionally points a gun of any kind, capable of injuring or killing a human being and whether loaded or unloaded, at or toward another; Note that (a) requires "recklessness" and "endangerment." Often one element is missing.
Note that (b) is subject to the justification defense that the act was reasonable force under 609.06 (which encompasses all uses of force). The "capability" language was included to protect theatrical props.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Re: Define "brandishing" Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:56 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 1064
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Maybe he meant that open carry can be considered "DISORDERLY CONDUCT". Arent the cops using 609.72 as a "jab" at those that open carry? I thought we had discussions on this topic...
Quote: 609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place,
including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will
tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of
disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive,
obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by
an epileptic seizure.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1]
Subd. 3. Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct. A caregiver, as defined in section
609.232, who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in
section 609.232, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a
fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.72; 1967 c 242 s 1; 1971 c 23 s 71; 1988 c 689 art 2 s 236;
1991 c 279 s 34; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 46; 1995 c 229 art 2 s 7
Tick Slayer wrote: My husband, who just finished POST training for Minnesota, informs me that simply open carrying a firearm can be considered brandishing.
1. Is brandishing objectively defined in the law, or is it up to the personal interpretation of each officer?
2. What's the penalty for brandishing?
3. How long can police keep your firearm if they take it during a stop?
I'd equally appreciate posted answers or pointers to online resources. (Or Joel's book, actually...if the answer is in there, I'll search the house for it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:13 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
|
|
In the court on public opinion, or in real court, cops can get by with almost anything that is part of their 'training". It's like following 'orders".
And some judges think it is "unfair" to criticise anyone's "training", they are employees too, I guess.
Judges will bend over backward to support "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion, anything that leads a reasonable officer...."; if it's "his training", it's reasonable no matter how wrong it is.
So, it is actually rewarding to the police to be trained with this stuff. It gives them extra powwer. The "trainers" are often lunatic LEO's that have been pulled off the streets and "promoted".
When they seize a gun they are "trained" to hold it for ballistics study, even when they know they'll never do that.
Last edited by Dick Unger on Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Re: Define "brandishing" Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:59 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
|
I'd assume to be charged with disorderly conduct, you'd have to be breaking the law with your behavior, not just carrying a gun.
If you're walking down the street or shopping in a store while open carrying, how could they charge disorderly conduct? I can't see it happening.
tepin wrote: Maybe he meant that open carry can be considered "DISORDERLY CONDUCT". Arent the cops using 609.72 as a "jab" at those that open carry? I thought we had discussions on this topic... Quote: 609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place,
including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will
tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of
disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive,
obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by
an epileptic seizure.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1]
Subd. 3. Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct. A caregiver, as defined in section
609.232, who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in
section 609.232, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a
fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.72; 1967 c 242 s 1; 1971 c 23 s 71; 1988 c 689 art 2 s 236;
1991 c 279 s 34; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 46; 1995 c 229 art 2 s 7
Tick Slayer wrote: My husband, who just finished POST training for Minnesota, informs me that simply open carrying a firearm can be considered brandishing.
1. Is brandishing objectively defined in the law, or is it up to the personal interpretation of each officer?
2. What's the penalty for brandishing?
3. How long can police keep your firearm if they take it during a stop?
I'd equally appreciate posted answers or pointers to online resources. (Or Joel's book, actually...if the answer is in there, I'll search the house for it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:07 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 1263
Location: MN
|
|
Disorderly conduct seems to be a catch-all accusation used by some cops to justify arresting, detaining (etc.) someone whose behavior worries them without actually exceeding the law, if what y'all are saying is accurate. It doesn't have to go to trial for it to be effective. All it has to do is create a perception in the "problem person" and the general community that it is not worth the hassle to do X, Y or Z in the presence of a cop.
tepin, I don't think he meant disorderly conduct. Although he's not real academic, he tends to retain terms and ideas the way a dog hangs onto a nice, meaty bone. It's still possible I misunderstood what HE was saying.
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Traveler
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:48 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
|
|
This all sounds like more of what we have come to expect with LEO's.
It is if they are being trained to protect property against criminals, which, in their definition, would include every living and breathing civilian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:37 pm |
|
| Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
|
|
I'm not going to say that a cop won't threaten you with disorderly conduct, but obviously the charge would not stick at all in Minnesota. This is almost an urban legend. In Wisconsin, the threat has been said by a number of police chiefs, probably because open carry is 'legal by not being illegal'*. Minnesota, open carry is expressly legal.
*- sad it has to be described that way.
_________________
Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:00 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 1064
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
We have a policy against reposting classified material so if you search the forum for 'disorderly'.....
Urban Legend Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:20 am wrote: ...the Minneapolis Park Police Officer did say he could have arrested him for "disorderly conduct"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:45 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
|
|
I sense that some LEOs are willfully ignorant of the carry laws, which comes from the elitist position that they should be the only ones allowed to carry firearms. It would be sad to see those officers in an instructing role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|
