JonnyB
July 2, 2003, 01:00 PM
I'm a member of the committee at work to determine what our official policy toward permit holders will be. We're a publicly-owned (hospital) business, so the law will not let us issue a blanket prohibition of legally-carried pistols (yes, Minnesota law calls all handguns "pistols").
A local attorney offered two so-called informational meetings today, so a few of us attended the first. The attorney at least had the honesty to state right up front that he was biased against the new law. So far, so good. Unfortunately, he went out of his way to present almost every aspect of it in negative manner. I had to call him on a few points, as well as answer a few questions that others had, or fill in an incomplete answer from the attorney and the police chief & county sheriff. Example: The attorney laughed when he (incorrectly) stated that a person with a permit, caught in a school, was guilty of a petty misdemeanor, and the fine ($25) was less than that for a traffic ticket. I called BS, and asked the LEOs to look it up. I had to ask, at the tail end of the meeting what the facts were. It's misdemeanor, carrying penalties of up to a $1000 fine and 90 days in the slammer. Some traffic ticket!
He also stated that we, as a public *employer* cannot prohibit the employees from carrying on the job. Bzzzzt! T'aint so. He read the pertinent portion of the law, and admitted his mistake. *Any* employer can issue a prohibition, whether public or private.
I was a bit put off by his attitude, but mostly by his lack of preparation for what was billed as providing info for local businesses. What a load! The LEOs did a pretty fair analysis of the law, but still said it needs improvment. One guy noted that a sample permit they passed around didn't have a photo on it. The LEOs and attorney just nodded. I mentioned that the law requires all permit holders, when carrying a sidearm, also have a *state-issued* photo ID in their posession, along with their permit. Oh.
A great deal of discussion about trespass - carry where the business owner prohibits guns - and the opinion was that property-owners' rights are being trumped by gun-owners' rights. I said that the law merely spells out what is required by the business owner before a gun-carrying visitor (patron) can be charged with trespass. If a "No Guns" sign is either unnoticed or ignored, a 'toter' must be verbally notified that his piece isn't welcome. If the person leaves, no trespass has been committed. If the person refuses to leave, then the LEOs are called, and a citation is issued for trespass. You needn't notify *every* customer that guns are prohibited. I think I made a few points clearer. I hope.
I called one of the local instructors, and encouraged him to crash the second session this afternmoon. You're s'posed to pre-register, but...
The closest I came to rudeness was a burst of laughter when the attorney was talking about open carry, and the reaction of people with a "healthy fear" of guns. I said something about an oxymoron...
JB
A local attorney offered two so-called informational meetings today, so a few of us attended the first. The attorney at least had the honesty to state right up front that he was biased against the new law. So far, so good. Unfortunately, he went out of his way to present almost every aspect of it in negative manner. I had to call him on a few points, as well as answer a few questions that others had, or fill in an incomplete answer from the attorney and the police chief & county sheriff. Example: The attorney laughed when he (incorrectly) stated that a person with a permit, caught in a school, was guilty of a petty misdemeanor, and the fine ($25) was less than that for a traffic ticket. I called BS, and asked the LEOs to look it up. I had to ask, at the tail end of the meeting what the facts were. It's misdemeanor, carrying penalties of up to a $1000 fine and 90 days in the slammer. Some traffic ticket!
He also stated that we, as a public *employer* cannot prohibit the employees from carrying on the job. Bzzzzt! T'aint so. He read the pertinent portion of the law, and admitted his mistake. *Any* employer can issue a prohibition, whether public or private.
I was a bit put off by his attitude, but mostly by his lack of preparation for what was billed as providing info for local businesses. What a load! The LEOs did a pretty fair analysis of the law, but still said it needs improvment. One guy noted that a sample permit they passed around didn't have a photo on it. The LEOs and attorney just nodded. I mentioned that the law requires all permit holders, when carrying a sidearm, also have a *state-issued* photo ID in their posession, along with their permit. Oh.
A great deal of discussion about trespass - carry where the business owner prohibits guns - and the opinion was that property-owners' rights are being trumped by gun-owners' rights. I said that the law merely spells out what is required by the business owner before a gun-carrying visitor (patron) can be charged with trespass. If a "No Guns" sign is either unnoticed or ignored, a 'toter' must be verbally notified that his piece isn't welcome. If the person leaves, no trespass has been committed. If the person refuses to leave, then the LEOs are called, and a citation is issued for trespass. You needn't notify *every* customer that guns are prohibited. I think I made a few points clearer. I hope.
I called one of the local instructors, and encouraged him to crash the second session this afternmoon. You're s'posed to pre-register, but...
The closest I came to rudeness was a burst of laughter when the attorney was talking about open carry, and the reaction of people with a "healthy fear" of guns. I said something about an oxymoron...
JB