User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 5:33:11 AM EDT
[#1]
What can you say besides Dumb Ass. He is about to learn a $10,000 lesson.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 5:38:15 AM EDT
[#2]
Wow.
He was asked to leave, giving him the chance to not be a felon, but he refused. That's some sort of stupid, there. Personally, I think we should be able to carry just about everywhere, but current laws dictate we can't. Therefore, I DON'T. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 5:44:25 AM EDT
[#3]
no more guns for mr felon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:00:00 AM EDT
[#4]
Misleading article is misleading...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:02:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Stupid games....Stupid Prizes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:03:04 AM EDT
[#6]
Wotta maroon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:05:19 AM EDT
[#7]
Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:07:59 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:12:37 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? He carried his gun on Nov 5th... He wasnt arrested until a month later, AFTER he posted some vids making fun of the cop involved... from wiki: In November 2010, Rosenberg openly wore a holstered handgun when coming into the Minneapolis city hall for a meeting with a representative of the city's police chief after providing prior notification as required by state law. After arrival, he was told that a court order prohibited people from carrying a gun anywhere in the building, which houses a small courtroom on one floor. He objected, citing the state gun laws, but avoided arrest when he agreed to carry his gun (which the police had confiscated, emptied of ammunition, and returned to him) back to his car. He subsequently filed a complaint against the police sergeant, and posted a YouTube video displaying how many weapons can be concealed on one's body. In December 2010, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse, a felony, and contempt of court, a misdemeanor; arrested; and jailed in lieu of $100,000 bond |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:14:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? He carried his gun on Nov 5th... He wasnt arrested until a month later, AFTER he posted some vids making fun of the cop involved... from wiki: In November 2010, Rosenberg openly wore a holstered handgun when coming into the Minneapolis city hall for a meeting with a representative of the city's police chief after providing prior notification as required by state law. After arrival, he was told that a court order prohibited people from carrying a gun anywhere in the building, which houses a small courtroom on one floor. He objected, citing the state gun laws, but avoided arrest when he agreed to carry his gun (which the police had confiscated, emptied of ammunition, and returned to him) back to his car. He subsequently filed a complaint against the police sergeant, and posted a YouTube video displaying how many weapons can be concealed on one's body. In December 2010, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse, a felony, and contempt of court, a misdemeanor; arrested; and jailed in lieu of $100,000 bond Moral of the story? Don't piss off the guy that prevented you from becoming a felon, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:17:53 AM EDT
[#11]
IBSBTP
In Before Someone Blames The Police |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:21:40 AM EDT
[#12]
just carry concealed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:29:09 AM EDT
[#13]
After shall-issue CCW passed in MN, there were a lot of establishments that started posting "XXX Bans Guns on these Premises" signs.
Now, most of the signs were not displayed in a manner 100% according to the law. What happens if you disobey the sign and carry anyway is, that if someone notices you are carrying and have ignored the sign, they may ask you to leave and come back. If you refuse to leave, you may be charged with misdemeanor trespassing. A simple way around this law (regardless whether the signs are compliant or not) is to: Carry your gun CONCEALED, and STFU about it. Rosenburg's people decided that they didn't like the signs at all and wouldn't be happy until they were all removed and/or made illegal, so many of them OPEN CARRIED in defiance of the signs inviting arrest and creating a test-case. These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:29:39 AM EDT
[#14]
I'm amazed at the number of people at ARFCOM who think it is acceptable to carry on private property against the owners wishes, yet are more than willing to give up their rights on public property.....fucking property they are part owner of.
Mind boggling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:31:52 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? He carried his gun on Nov 5th... He wasnt arrested until a month later, AFTER he posted some vids making fun of the cop involved... from wiki: In November 2010, Rosenberg openly wore a holstered handgun when coming into the Minneapolis city hall for a meeting with a representative of the city's police chief after providing prior notification as required by state law. After arrival, he was told that a court order prohibited people from carrying a gun anywhere in the building, which houses a small courtroom on one floor. He objected, citing the state gun laws, but avoided arrest when he agreed to carry his gun (which the police had confiscated, emptied of ammunition, and returned to him) back to his car. He subsequently filed a complaint against the police sergeant, and posted a YouTube video displaying how many weapons can be concealed on one's body. In December 2010, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse, a felony, and contempt of court, a misdemeanor; arrested; and jailed in lieu of $100,000 bond Moral of the story? Don't piss off the guy that prevented you from becoming a felon, I guess. Exactly. If this were really about being able to carry your gun to defend yourself, it wouldn't be an issue. He had ample opportunity to correct his actions and rectify things, but he kept pushing and pushing. Incidentally, I am not aware of any state that would allow CCW holders to carry a gun in a courthouse building or a school. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:45:19 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I'm amazed at the number of people at ARFCOM who think it is acceptable to carry on private property against the owners wishes, yet are more than willing to give up their rights on public property.....fucking property they are part owner of. Mind boggling. nail just met hammer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 10:13:25 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? He carried his gun on Nov 5th... He wasnt arrested until a month later, AFTER he posted some vids making fun of the cop involved... from wiki: In November 2010, Rosenberg openly wore a holstered handgun when coming into the Minneapolis city hall for a meeting with a representative of the city's police chief after providing prior notification as required by state law. After arrival, he was told that a court order prohibited people from carrying a gun anywhere in the building, which houses a small courtroom on one floor. He objected, citing the state gun laws, but avoided arrest when he agreed to carry his gun (which the police had confiscated, emptied of ammunition, and returned to him) back to his car. He subsequently filed a complaint against the police sergeant, and posted a YouTube video displaying how many weapons can be concealed on one's body. In December 2010, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse, a felony, and contempt of court, a misdemeanor; arrested; and jailed in lieu of $100,000 bond Moral of the story? Don't piss off the guy that prevented you from becoming a felon, I guess. The guy complied with the request to take the gun outside. The moral of the story is that pissed off functionaries will try to charge you a month later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 10:14:46 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
After shall-issue CCW passed in MN, there were a lot of establishments that started posting "XXX Bans Guns on these Premises" signs. Now, most of the signs were not displayed in a manner 100% according to the law. What happens if you disobey the sign and carry anyway is, that if someone notices you are carrying and have ignored the sign, they may ask you to leave and come back. If you refuse to leave, you may be charged with misdemeanor trespassing. A simple way around this law (regardless whether the signs are compliant or not) is to: Carry your gun CONCEALED, and STFU about it. Rosenburg's people decided that they didn't like the signs at all and wouldn't be happy until they were all removed and/or made illegal, so many of them OPEN CARRIED in defiance of the signs inviting arrest and creating a test-case. These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU. Yeah. Rosa Parks should have STFU and sat in the back of the bus. What a stupid bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 10:18:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
The guy complied with the request to take the gun outside. The moral of the story is that pissed off functionaries will try to charge you a month later. ...When you open carry again for the second time. Again, I wonder if any other states disallow courthouse carry... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 10:21:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Again, I wonder if any other states disallow courthouse carry... The question you SHOULD be asking is what is a courthouse... Is a "police station" located in city hall a courthouse, simply because a room in that building is used as a court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 10:24:56 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
After shall-issue CCW passed in MN, there were a lot of establishments that started posting "XXX Bans Guns on these Premises" signs. Now, most of the signs were not displayed in a manner 100% according to the law. What happens if you disobey the sign and carry anyway is, that if someone notices you are carrying and have ignored the sign, they may ask you to leave and come back. If you refuse to leave, you may be charged with misdemeanor trespassing. A simple way around this law (regardless whether the signs are compliant or not) is to: Carry your gun CONCEALED, and STFU about it. Rosenburg's people decided that they didn't like the signs at all and wouldn't be happy until they were all removed and/or made illegal, so many of them OPEN CARRIED in defiance of the signs inviting arrest and creating a test-case. These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU. Yeah. Rosa Parks should have STFU and sat in the back of the bus. What a stupid bitch. You read into my posts a bit too much. My main gripe with this guy is how he chooses to fight it. It has much more potential for backlash against the vast majority of CCWers who don't want to be seen as vigilantes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 10:32:07 AM EDT
[#22]
What an idiot..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:07:57 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Again, I wonder if any other states disallow courthouse carry... The question you SHOULD be asking is what is a courthouse... Is a "police station" located in city hall a courthouse, simply because a room in that building is used as a court? In a nearby incorportated city inside the most populous county in Virginia, there is a City Hall building that has a few rooms used as courtrooms (I guess as overflow since the surrounding county has a large court complex a block or two away, which the city also uses) but court is not its main function. The building houses the city government as well as a satellite DMV office. No metal detectors at the entrance, and the few LEOs and attorneys I've talked to say that the only part you couldn't carry in was where the courtrooms were, which I assume would have metal detectors set up at that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:10:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Contempt of court?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:13:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
http://www.valleynewslive.com/Global/story.asp?S=13643553 He was asked to leave with his weapons which are illegal in the government building, but he refused. WCCO-TV says he faces a felony charge of bringing a dangerous weapon into the building and contempt of court. So, let me get this straight. The 2nd Amendment is specifically aimed at the Federal Government, and it has now been incorporated to be SPECIFICALLY aimed at the state and local governments. That means that it is SPECIFICALLY illegal for the Federal, State or Local Government to forbid (or infringe on the ability of American Citizens) the carry of weapons EVER... especially on property owned by said entities. I agree, this is going to be a costly mistake (unless he has lawyers in waiting with the case already built), but he is in the right nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:15:14 AM EDT
[#26]
Most of you need to learn not to trusetanything that the Minnesota media writes relating to guns. What the actor in this drama did was 100% LEGAL under state law as well as intentional.
http://northernmuckraker.blogspot.com/2010/12/breaking-news.html http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2010/12/breaking-news-rosenberg-arrested.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:15:44 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Exactly. If this were really about being able to carry your gun to defend yourself, it wouldn't be an issue. He had ample opportunity to correct his actions and rectify things, but he kept pushing and pushing. He had no need to correct his actions because his actions were correct in the first place... not very smart, but they were correct and within the scope of his Constitutional rights. Incidentally, I am not aware of any state that would allow CCW holders to carry a gun in a courthouse building or a school. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
I am not aware of any power granted to the states that allows them to infringe on the 2nd Amendment in ANY manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:16:47 AM EDT
[#28]
If I remember this one correctly, the court ordered the place forbidden to carry, but state law does not.
When exactly can judges make their own laws??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:17:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
I agree, this is going to be a costly mistake (unless he has lawyers in waiting with the case already built), but he is in the right nonetheless. I am with you in principle. It's soley his methods that I am in disagreement with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:18:27 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree, this is going to be a costly mistake (unless he has lawyers in waiting with the case already built), but he is in the right nonetheless. I am with you in principle. It's soley his methods that I am in disagreement with. Seems that, after making his point, he returned the weapons to his car after he was asked to do so... so, actually, I have no problem at all with his methods. This is about to be a very costly mistake for the police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:18:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Incidentally, I am not aware of any state that would allow CCW holders to carry a gun in a courthouse building or a school. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. You obviously are not familiar with Minnesota, which is where this takes place, and where the state law not only allows one to carry a gun in a courtroom with a permit, but specifically bars any state or municipality property, save a prison, from banning carry. There are certain advance notification requirements for some buildings like the capitol, and they were met in this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:23:46 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Incidentally, I am not aware of any state that would allow CCW holders to carry a gun in a courthouse building or a school. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. You obviously are not familiar with Minnesota, which is where this takes place, and where the state law not only allows one to carry a gun in a courtroom with a permit, but specifically bars any state or municipality property, save a prison, from banning carry. There are certain advance notification requirements for some buildings like the capitol, and they were met in this case. That is a very interesting twist. Can you cite the state code for that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:24:06 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I'm amazed at the number of people at ARFCOM who think it is acceptable to carry on private property against the owners wishes, yet are more than willing to give up their rights on public property.....fucking property they are part owner of. Mind boggling. In this case it's not private property, it's public property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:26:13 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
After shall-issue CCW passed in MN, there were a lot of establishments that started posting "XXX Bans Guns on these Premises" signs. Now, most of the signs were not displayed in a manner 100% according to the law. What happens if you disobey the sign and carry anyway is, that if someone notices you are carrying and have ignored the sign, they may ask you to leave and come back. If you refuse to leave, you may be charged with misdemeanor trespassing. A simple way around this law (regardless whether the signs are compliant or not) is to: Carry your gun CONCEALED, and STFU about it. Rosenburg's people decided that they didn't like the signs at all and wouldn't be happy until they were all removed and/or made illegal, so many of them OPEN CARRIED in defiance of the signs inviting arrest and creating a test-case. These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU. I'm with you on this. GM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:29:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Incidentally, I am not aware of any state that would allow CCW holders to carry a gun in a courthouse building or a school. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. You obviously are not familiar with Minnesota, which is where this takes place, and where the state law not only allows one to carry a gun in a courtroom with a permit, but specifically bars any state or municipality property, save a prison, from banning carry. There are certain advance notification requirements for some buildings like the capitol, and they were met in this case. Clearly not. I'll just leave this here: 2010 Minnesota Statutes 609.66 DANGEROUS WEAPONS. 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: (1) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse complex; or (2) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives in any state building within the Capitol Area described in chapter 15B, other than the National Guard Armory. (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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:33:59 AM EDT
[#36]
There is a lot more to this story, Joel Rosenberg was fighting City Hall after his wife had been arrested on some bogus charges.
Instead of being a good subject and being glad to avoid prosecution for not committing a crime, he set out to set out to take on city hall. We should be glad there are guys like him out there, too many places allow police to make their own laws up as they go along when it comes to firearms. http://www.popehat.com/2010/12/09/the-empire-strikes-back/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:37:31 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm amazed at the number of people at ARFCOM who think it is acceptable to carry on private property against the owners wishes, yet are more than willing to give up their rights on public property.....fucking property they are part owner of. Mind boggling. In this case it's not private property, it's public property. That's what I said  ....however for context you may want to look at past threads of folks here who think a property owner has no right to bar them from bringing a gun on to property they OWN.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:37:38 AM EDT
[#38]
Last time I had to go to Ramsey County Courthouse, there was a full blown metal detector security station. Carry is not permitted there. Seems to me that you could easily make more of a case based on them simply banning you from carrying versus trying to get arrested for a felony. Again, Mr. Rosenberg's methods are in question, here, not the law.
I don't like that the law says I can't carry in schools (where shootings NEVER happen) but if I open carry there, I will sure as hell expect to be arrested, have a size 12 boot placed on my cheek while my other cheek is on the concrete, have my gun confiscated and be charged with a felony. How does sitting in jail with felony charges help me either: 1, constructively change the law or 2, feed and protect my family? Not to mention, that the news would report "Whacko carries gun to school" "School shooting prevented"...Not "Law-abiding citizen sits unfairly in jail"... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 11:39:18 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? He carried his gun on Nov 5th... He wasnt arrested until a month later, AFTER he posted some vids making fun of the cop involved... from wiki: In November 2010, Rosenberg openly wore a holstered handgun when coming into the Minneapolis city hall for a meeting with a representative of the city's police chief after providing prior notification as required by state law. After arrival, he was told that a court order prohibited people from carrying a gun anywhere in the building, which houses a small courtroom on one floor. He objected, citing the state gun laws, but avoided arrest when he agreed to carry his gun (which the police had confiscated, emptied of ammunition, and returned to him) back to his car. He subsequently filed a complaint against the police sergeant, and posted a YouTube video displaying how many weapons can be concealed on one's body. In December 2010, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse, a felony, and contempt of court, a misdemeanor; arrested; and jailed in lieu of $100,000 bond Moral of the story? Don't piss off the guy that prevented you from becoming a felon, I guess. The guy complied with the request to take the gun outside. The moral of the story is that pissed off functionaries will try to charge you a month later. If you file a complaint and a video essentially calling them idiots, then yes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:09:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
After shall-issue CCW passed in MN, there were a lot of establishments that started posting "XXX Bans Guns on these Premises" signs. Now, most of the signs were not displayed in a manner 100% according to the law. What happens if you disobey the sign and carry anyway is, that if someone notices you are carrying and have ignored the sign, they may ask you to leave and come back. If you refuse to leave, you may be charged with misdemeanor trespassing. A simple way around this law (regardless whether the signs are compliant or not) is to: Carry your gun CONCEALED, and STFU about it. Rosenburg's people decided that they didn't like the signs at all and wouldn't be happy until they were all removed and/or made illegal, so many of them OPEN CARRIED in defiance of the signs inviting arrest and creating a test-case. Citation needed. These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU. You can read Mr Rosenberg's side of this case at freejoel.com His meeting was with the public information officer, at City Hall. That's now a courthouse? Or only a courthouse when they want it to be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:18:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU.
The way you get the laws changed is by someone being a test case and bringing it up through the courts. If you wait for legislation to change guns laws in your favor, don't hold your breathe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:27:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After shall-issue CCW passed in MN, there were a lot of establishments that started posting "XXX Bans Guns on these Premises" signs. Now, most of the signs were not displayed in a manner 100% according to the law. What happens if you disobey the sign and carry anyway is, that if someone notices you are carrying and have ignored the sign, they may ask you to leave and come back. If you refuse to leave, you may be charged with misdemeanor trespassing. A simple way around this law (regardless whether the signs are compliant or not) is to: Carry your gun CONCEALED, and STFU about it. Rosenburg's people decided that they didn't like the signs at all and wouldn't be happy until they were all removed and/or made illegal, so many of them OPEN CARRIED in defiance of the signs inviting arrest and creating a test-case. These test cases usually only result in negative press for all CCW permit holders in Minnesota. If you really want to carry your gun to defend your family and protect yourself, you pretty much CAN in all places apart from schools and courthouses. Carry it, and STFU. Yeah. Rosa Parks should have STFU and sat in the back of the bus. What a stupid bitch. You read into my posts a bit too much. My main gripe with this guy is how he chooses to fight it. It has much more potential for backlash against the vast majority of CCWers who don't want to be seen as vigilantes. No. History, RE Rosa Parks, has taught us that sometimes we need to go out there and fight for our rights, not cower and be greatful that we are permitted a piece of our rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:30:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the background info. After watching the video of the shooting at the school board meeting the other day, I can't believe guys are responding to this like they are. Guys, there is much more to the story than this. Mr. Rosenberg was trying to make himself a test-case. He and his followers are always advocating "in-your-face" tactics in Minnesota and especially Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are plenty of liberals to try and "advance" gun rights. How's that working out for ya, now? He carried his gun on Nov 5th... He wasnt arrested until a month later, AFTER he posted some vids making fun of the cop involved... from wiki: In November 2010, Rosenberg openly wore a holstered handgun when coming into the Minneapolis city hall for a meeting with a representative of the city's police chief after providing prior notification as required by state law. After arrival, he was told that a court order prohibited people from carrying a gun anywhere in the building, which houses a small courtroom on one floor. He objected, citing the state gun laws, but avoided arrest when he agreed to carry his gun (which the police had confiscated, emptied of ammunition, and returned to him) back to his car. He subsequently filed a complaint against the police sergeant, and posted a YouTube video displaying how many weapons can be concealed on one's body. In December 2010, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a courthouse, a felony, and contempt of court, a misdemeanor; arrested; and jailed in lieu of $100,000 bond Moral of the story? Don't piss off the guy that prevented you from becoming a felon, I guess. Exactly. If this were really about being able to carry your gun to defend yourself, it wouldn't be an issue. He had ample opportunity to correct his actions and rectify things, but he kept pushing and pushing. Incidentally, I am not aware of any state that would allow CCW holders to carry a gun in a courthouse building or a school. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. There are multiple states they allow school carry for CCW. I believe Utah and California are two ? I think there is more also. Don't know about courthouses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:34:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Wow. He was asked to leave, giving him the chance to not be a felon, but he refused. That's some sort of stupid, there. Personally, I think we should be able to carry just about everywhere, but current laws dictate we can't. Therefore, I DON'T. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You are far too sensible for GD 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:47:02 PM EDT
[#45]
This place is chock full of panty waists, scared shitless that they will lose that which they have but don't use out of fear of losing it.
Shitty way to go through life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2010 2:11:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Sounds like he needed standing for a suit to change the law.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
