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 These have generally been withdrawn, as being clearly over-broad.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.
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