| User | Post |
|
|
|
I was charged with felony terroristic threats. I was given a Stay of Imposition, wihich reduces my felony to a misdemeanor after completing probation. I am currently not on probation. I want to go hunting. Can I restore my gun rights?
Â
This is in the state of Minnesota.
|
|
|
October 7, 2010
|
Mathew Higbee, Esq
| | |
|
|
|
Mike, you should have your rights restored by operation of law as soon as your offense is reduced.  That being said, I have seen the Minnesota BCA deny firearm purchases even after reduction. In such cases, we had to go get a court order.Â
Â
My advice would be to try to call the Minnesota BCA after your reduction and ask if you are eligible to own a firearm. If they say no, contact me or another attorney to apply for firearm right restoration from the court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Higbee, I wonder if you would change your statement in light of State of Minnesota v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2007), which provides that the reduction in the level of a crime under 609.13 from a felony to a misdemeanor does not alter the fact that the individual was still initially charged with and convicted of a "crime of violence" and therefor even after a 609.13 reduction the individual is still an inelligible felon for purposes of owning a firearm.
|
|
|
October 22, 2010
|
Mathew Higbee, Esq
| | |
|
|
|
Adam, I will take a look at the case, but if your interpretation of the holding is correct, I probably would change my conclusion. Thank you for the additional insight. More soon.
|
|
|
|
|
October 22, 2010
|
Mathew Higbee, Esq
| | |
|
|
|
Adam, I had a chance to look at the case you referenced. The case does indeed hold that a person who has had a prior felony reduced to a misdemeanor under section 609.13 is still considered someone convicted of a "crime of violence" for purposes of firearm restriction.  My analysis neglected to consider terrorist threat as a violent offense.  By the way or for those interested in reading the case, it is actually "State v. Anderson" and the correct citation is 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.2007).
Also of interest might be a recent case where the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that an applicant for a license to become a peace officer who had a prior felony conviction is still a convicted "felon" even if the offense had been reduced to a misdemeanor. See In re Woollett, 540 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 1995). Â
Both of those cases were very recently relied on by an unpublished Minn. Court of Appeals decision. Wolbert v. State, No. A09-1127 (03/16/10).
Thank you again for pointing that out to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was in the same situation as Mike J's. I was charged with a felony and had a stay of imposition. I completed my probation and the case was reduce to a gross misdemeanor. So here I decided to get a purchase permit for a pistol a year after the conviction (1993) and was told by the sherrif I couldn't because of a felony. After wrangling with the clerk of court, the clerk said it was reported as a felony and changed it to a GM on the system. Basically a clerical error. The the Lautenburg Amendment came (my conviction is DV related) and I again was denied a firearm until I argued with the ATF over MN Statute 609.165 (1992 – year my case was discharged) applied and that I had my civil rights restored because my probation barred me from owning, possessing, transporting a firearm. Since I did that, I really haven't had a problem.
State v. Anderson took the "Totality of The Circumstances" approach which doesn't mean that a crime of violence removes your rights. The circumstances that a crime is judged by the court is the important arguement. In my case it was the year that my judgement went into affect. Thank you MN Constitution!
|
|
Add A New Question
Reply to Post
Login 
Register 
Quote and Reply 
Search