Posted on 12/10/2010 6:12:05 AM PST by marktwain
Joel Rosenberg tried to bring a gun into the Minneapolis Police headquarters and the cops wouldn't let him.
Now Rosenberg is accusing the cop who took his gun of assault.
Earlier this month, Rosenberg, who says he is a science fiction writer and handgun instructor, paid a visit to the MPD chief's office to pick up some documents he'd requested. Sgt. William Palmer, the public information officer, saw that Rosenberg was packing, and asked him to dump the gun. Rosenberg refused. He insisted he had the right to wear his gun.
Palmer explained that a court order prevented him from carrying the gun. Rosenberg disagreed.
So Palmer physically took the gun away from Rosenberg and unloaded the cartridge. He handed it back when Rosenberg agreed to put the gun in his car.
Here's a video of what happened. Warning: all the action takes place in the first minute or so. After that, it is a deathly boring clip of a desk.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.citypages.com ...
It’s going to be hard to nail the cop if he was right about the gun needing to be checked.
That lady had left the scene by that time.
No, at 1:33 in the video, he is leveling the gun apparently at the lady behind the counter, and certainly in disregard for anyone beyond.
The problem is he was setting up a dangerous situation with someone (the guy with the badge) that is not is the position to interpret the judges order.
If the guy wanted to challenge the order, he could have set it up so as not to get tempers flared or have the situation get out of order. I give him two thumbs down for putting several people at risk with intentionally creating a confrontation between two armed people in a public area.
She apparently hit it.
Would you?
Thanks for the time stamp. He is pointing the gun at the blank wall to the left of him and clear of the lady to the right of him. If I had been that lady, I would have left the scene with the other lady.
He is pointing the gun at the blank wall to the left of him and clear of the lady to the right of him.
The video is conclusive. He was pointing the gun to his left, the lady was on his right. Simulate the action yourself and it would be extremely unatural to point the gun to the right given the position of his left hand on the action.
I’ve got an radius, THIS IS A STICKUP!
The ulna is the inner bone.
I can't knowledgably speak concerning the court order, but as far as state law goes, I perused 39 pages of the Minnesota firearms laws, and couldn't find any reference to a courthouse or jail being off-limits.
Not at all sure the officer knows what he's talking about.
Places Where Pistols are Off-Limits or Restricted even with a Permit to Carry
Despite the general rule that permits to carry pistols are valid statewide, pistols, or other firearms, are nevertheless restricted or not allowed in the following places:
· Correctional facilities or state hospitals (Minn. Stat. ‘ 243.55)
· County jails (Minn. Stat. ‘ 641.165)
· Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (Minn. Stat. ‘ 609.66)
· The Capitol area, unless the commissioner of public safety is notified (Minn. Stat. ‘ 609.66); “capitol area” is defined in Minn. Stat. § 15.50, subdivision 2.
· Afield while hunting big game by archery, except bear (Minn. Stat. ‘ 97B.211)
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/83/SF0842.html
Additionally, firearms are not permitted in federal court facilities or other federal facilities (Title 18 U.S.C. ‘ 930). This is just one of many federal laws regulating firearms. Federal law must also be consulted to ensure compliance with all applicable firearms laws.
If he notified them(and I read that he did)he should be in the clear. Hopefully done via certified mail.
Tempers run high in court rooms and I am all for no guns allowed in those area's...
The statute in Minnesota does not allow local communities to ban guns. The only places where guns are forbidden are those specified in state or federal law. The City of Minneapolis cannot add its own.
Courthouses are covered specifically under the state statute. Carry is forbidden in court buildings, unless you have a permit and have specifically informed the county sheriff that you intend to carry in the courthouse.
There are those that argue that despite the statute, basic separation of powers principles provide that judges have the authority to ban guns in their courtrooms, regardless of what the legislature might do. Given that it's a court that's going to decide this case, I expect that will turn out to be true. The question is how broadly can such orders can be written.
Immediately after the shall-issue bill passed, a number of courts issued judicial orders banning guns - but not just in their courtrooms, but usually over considerably wider venues.
Most of the suburban courtrooms are in government centers that are in a shared complex with a regional public library. These libraries are usually in the same building", but have no publicly accessible connection from one to the other. In some cases, they have no connection whatsoever, and only share a common wall. The judicial orders as originally issued purported to ban carry in the adjacent libraries, as well. These have generally been withdrawn, as being clearly over-broad.
Minneapolis City Hall, of course, is not a courthouse. It contains a couple of courtrooms, back up in the garrets, that haven't seen regular use in a number of decades. The "courthouse" is across the street, in the court tower of the Hennepin County Government Center. The two are connected by an underground tunnel.
The charge, in this case, is that Joel has violated the court order banning carry in the Minneapolis City Hall. There is no question that he has. The issue is whether the courts have authority to ban carry over so wide an area, when the statute clearly states that they do not.
The hope is that this case will result in a precedent establishing that courts do not have an unrestricted authority to impose gun bans in violation of statute.
Personally, I'd not bet that it comes out that way.
Interestingly, in my follow up searching, I came across this...
2009 Minnesota Statutes...2009 307.08... Subd. 2.Felony; gross misdemeanor.(a) A person who intentionally, willfully, and knowingly does any of the following is guilty of a felony: ....(3) discharges any firearms upon or over the grounds of any public or private cemetery or authenticated burial ground.
Wonder if that means that in Minnesota, anyone firing three rifle volleys at the funeral of a veteran would be charged with a felony.
Trying to make sense of the constantly changing and frequently conflicting firearms laws makes my head spin.
I think that a no guns in the courthouse is not unreasonable, but as has been mentioned, outside of the courthouse, a judge is overstepping his bounds....That I agree with.
I know a man that was walking out of the court ROOM in a contentious divorce, the female tried to jump the man before he was out of the courtroom and his lawyer had to step up and stop her....emotions run too high in courts to allow anyone a gun. Innocent bystanders can get killed during a shoot out in a court...it has happened when one person was able to get a gun into the area... GG
The policeman, Palmer was polite and professional...he is in a position of having to follow court orders and I note that when he told Rosenberg that he was in violation of his permit, the man that had the gun in his possession, Rosenberg decided to comply with the police mans request...As I said I only watched the first 2 minutes and Rosenberg was looking for a fight. He put a camera in the office and I think he was hoping for a hard nose to push him around.
He got a professional officer and that spoiled his chance for a law suit. As one of the commentators at the site said, he knew this guy and he had sued before.
He was the jerk and not the cop. If I had a CCP, this is not the guy I would want as my poster boy for CCP.
If Rosenberg has a problem with the court order, challenge it is the courts not set up a camera hoping to be able to sue someone...
Further more Rosenberg is not the arbitrator of what is or is not constitutional, nor is he the arbitrator of what is or is not a lawful court order...
Palmers only statement when questioned was that the law covered any building that houses courtrooms or jails. If there were courtrooms or jails in this building he doesn't have a leg to stand on and as I said in my first post, he is a guy looking for a lawsuit...Hope he fails on a grand scale...he is neither a lawyer nor an officer of the court...he came across to me as a smart ass that decided he didn't want to endanger his CCP by standing his ground and I assume he left with his gun....
To take over an hour to completely down load the whole thing was not necessary by the guy Rosenberg's own writings, as he said all the action took place in the first 1 to 2 minutes... GG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.