Staples MN Concealed Carry banned?

[savaship]

I visit Staples MN often, and have a MN CCW. As I was reading through the Staples City ordinances, I came across this mysterious ordinance:

Sec. 9.6.06. Carrying Concealed. The possession by any persons other than a public officer of any deadly weapon concealed on his/her person is hereby prohibited.

So the real question here is, can a city override your CCW?

I've also made note of several landlords in the area banning their tenants from having firearms, which I believe from reading 624.714 of the stat statutes, is against Minnesota State law as well.

Does anyone have any good information on what to do? Whenever I travel there I simply opt to open carry the biggest scariest revolver I own, but I would like to know what the real legal breakdown of this is. Thank you.

Sources:
http://www.staples.govoffice.com/vertical/sites/%7BCE65AD08-2C80-463D-923C-D56066640F41%7D/uploads/Staples_City_Code_June_2011_final_complete.pdf
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=624.714&year=2011

 

[targetshooter22]

It's a state permit. The Staples law is probably old, or else a futile gesture of oposition to the MN Personal Protection Act. The usual laws still apply with regards to schools, alcohol, posted businesses, etc.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=624.714&year=2011

 

[AC1911]

I know I'm being picky but we don't have a CCW permit, it's a PTC(permit to carry). Open or concealed, doesn't matter in MN.

 

[mnhntr]

I guess I am in violation of that law because I go through there on my way to work almost 3 times a week. Go figure from a town that refuses to keep up with the rest of the world.

 

[mnhntr]

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.


This makes the Staples city law invalid.

 

[threefortyduster]

Looks like you found your answer. Florida has the State Exclusivity law as well, where cities or towns or counties, etc can't pass a firearms law that is more restrictive than the state law.

 

[zxcvbob]

That law is invalid because the MN law preempts it -- but maybe take it as an invitation to open carry?

 

[rule303]

MN does have a preemption law regarding firearms. Municipalities may not regulate beyond the scope of state law, except for laws regarding discharge of firearms.

 

[Kendahl]

Since there is state preemption, the municipal ordinance is invalid and unenforceable. They may simply not have gotten around to repealing it and know better than to try to enforce it. Or they may be hard heads who won't accept state preemption until forced to.

Rather than find out the hard way, I suggest you contact the gun rights organization that brought about concealed carry in Minnesota. They will have the experience and skills to deal effectively with the city. Another approach would be to contact your representative to the state legislature, if you think he will be cooperative, and ask him to request a formal opinion from the state attorney general to be sent to the city.

 

[Spats McGee]

Even with preemption by the State, a person CCing could easily find himself arrested and fighting the charge. I'd suggest a letter to the city council with a copy to the city attorney's office. Include copies both of the municipal ordinance and the state statute, and ask that the ordinance be repealed.

 

[savaship]

Thanks for all your responses everyone! With Exclusivity on the books, I doubt a city would open themselves up to that easy a lawsuit, but it may still be important to get the law off the books.

My other question went mostly unseen, so I will clarify the details: The apartment that my girlfriend rents in Staples has a large sign in the front window that reads
"Prohibited on this premises: firearms of any kind"
I was under the impression that Minnesota state law specifically forbids landlords from banning the legal possession of firearms by tenants, or their guests. This landlord I believe is senselessly endangering lives inside the structure by advertising to would-be rapists/murderers/robbers that the people inside are not equipped to fight back. He put this sign up a week after she moved in, and has in the lease that the house rules are a part of the lease. Is there someone she can call to make the landlord modify, revise, or remove the sign? She already contacted the State's attorney, with no response.

 

[Kendahl]

The landlord's sign would be another good question for the gun rights organization. (I think it may be the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, www.gocra-mn.org.) State law may preempt his sign as it does municipal gun control ordinances. An illegal provision in a contract is not enforceable. Your girl friend may need to take her lease contract to a lawyer to see whether the landlord can change the rules, in effect unilaterally modifying the contract, after it has been signed.

Even if the landlord's firearms ban is unenforceable, it would still be wise avoid a dispute by keeping a low profile. If he does find out and tries to evict her, her lawyer can inform him that he will find himself on the losing end of a suit for breach of contract.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...State law may preempt his sign as it does municipal gun control ordinances....

Nope, at least the statute quoted in post 5 sure wouldn't.

...An illegal provision in a contract is not enforceable...

That's true, but we don't know that anything in the lease or about the change in house rules is illegal. So the OP's girl friend really needs to see a lawyer.

I think at least one State has a statute specifically prohibiting a landlord from having a "no guns" clause in a residential lease. But I don't know whether there's such a law in Minnesota.

 

[targetshooter22]

Nope, the permit is a state permit. This came up in detail, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Twin Cities because Mpls and St Paul (and others) would not be able to pass and enforce their own ordinances. There was a well publicized test case in Bloomington, MN, home of the Mall of America, where after the Bloomington PD expressed public interest in making arrests, confronted a man with a permit and a big 44 in an obvious shoulder holster in the mall. He was told to leave, he did, and no further action was taken.

Landlords can post whatever they want; that's a free speech issue. Whether or not they can prevent a resident or guest of a resident from having a firearm is not their issue, and they can't do anything about it. That does not mean they can't make her life difficult in other ways, should they choose to based on her actions, or the actions of her guest.

 

[savaship]

Thanks again for the responses, Minnesota state code already has a provision in it:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

This is off MN statutes 624.714 subd. 17(e) So can the landlord really post such a sign under the guise of speech, or even attempt to make anyone's life hell?

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

 

[Frank Ettin]

Perhaps a landlord can post such a sign (but even that might be questionable under the MN law cited), but he certainly can't enforce it.