Minnesota Supreme Court Rules a vehicle on a Road is a Public Space!

[puma guy]

The decision in this case is just nuts as Tome Greive states. I am going to go out on a limb and say it will be struck down, but when you have judicial minds that are nominated to the highest court in a state make a ruling such as this it is not the law is not their concern, but rather their personal opinions to backdoor altering the laws. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but the Bill of Rights. As Greive states it is crazy, but progressives judges included will do anything to get their way, including ignoring your rights.

[philip964]

When I was young I thought Judges were fair, honest and followed the law. They did not take sides, and they were impartial.

Then I became older.

I then thought that Courts of Appeals were fair, honest and followed the law. They did not take sides, and they were impartial.

Then I became much older and realized that no one was impartial and almost everyone looked out for themselves even supreme courts.

[Grayling813]

Then I became much older and realized that no one was impartial and almost everyone looked out for themselves even supreme courts.

[puma guy]

When I was young I thought Judges were fair, honest and followed the law. They did not take sides, and they were impartial.

Then I became older.

I then thought that Courts of Appeals were fair, honest and followed the law. They did not take sides, and they were impartial.

Then I became much older and realized that no one was impartial and almost everyone looked out for themselves even supreme courts.

I have a friend who is not a lawyer, but has argued his own cases, one all the way to the Texas Supreme Court (he did not prevail), though the judges thought he had an interesting argument on sovereign immunity. He has been successful in several instances. He was at one time suing several lawyers for conspiracy to defraud. He discovered his lawyers were working both sides in a real estate deal to help the seller. The judge ruled that he could only sue one lawyer. Totally defeated his conspiracy case. He pointed out to the judge one person can not be a conspiracy and was told by the judge that's not my problem.

[G.A. Heath]

This case hinges on the definition of public space used by the statute. It's not as bad as it sounds but it's definitely not good. Steve Lehto did a video on it and makes sound palatable.

[puma guy]

This case hinges on the definition of public space used by the statute. It's not as bad as it sounds but it's definitely not good. Steve Lehto did a video on it and makes sound palatable.

I watched Lehto's second video on the matter. I'm not a lawyer, so some of his legal explanation seemed to conflict with my logic and common sense. With that said I see the ruling going beyond a vehicle on a public road and extending to a boat on/in public waters. I say that knowing that police will take liberties even beyond Constitutional protections, so using the decision on a water way seems inevitable. Then we may have the situation of perhaps a houseboat anchored or maybe even docked. It doesn't fit the exemptions cited in the law. Neither the example I gave nor the high court's decision are palatable for me. But I'm not a lawyer.

[srothstein]

I did not look at the videos or read the full ruling, but the logic seems clear to me that this is a correct decision.

Is a street a public place? In most cases, it would seem clear to me that it is (I know some streets are privately owned, but let's ignore them for a second). If I am walking down the street with a pistol in a holster and a jacket covering it, am I carrying a weapon in a public place? What about if I have the pistol in my briefcase while I am walking down the street? So if I am driving down the same street with a pistol concealed in my vehicle, how am I not carrying a weapon in a public place? The car is just the container I am using, like the holster or briefcase was just the container. What difference does it make what the container is if I am on a public street?

I have heard this argument before about carrying in a vehicle and never understood what difference the container makes.

[MAFWG]

By that logic, your house is a public place if it fronts on a street.

Hypothetical case: You are in your motor home. Let's say you park your RV in a post office parking lot (which is a public place). If you take a shower in your RV, are you committing public indecency by being nude in a public place?

If your house is a private place, then your car should be also since it is an extension of your home.

[srothstein]

By that logic, your house is a public place if it fronts on a street.

Hypothetical case: You are in your motor home. Let's say you park your RV in a post office parking lot (which is a public place). If you take a shower in your RV, are you committing public indecency by being nude in a public place?

If your house is a private place, then your car should be also since it is an extension of your home.

Your logic is faulty. My house is on private property, whether it fronts on a public street or not. My logic is that being on a public street makes you in a public place and the container for the weapon is irrelevant.

Your RV example might be a better analogy. The RV is in a public place, so a weapon in it is in a public place also. It fails when you try to extend it to the shower because that requires a person to view it, not just the mere possession of something. To show how it fails, your home is generally a private place, but long standing precedents have had people convicted of nudity in public if they are deliberately standing nude in front of the window where they can be seen from the street.

And I disagree about the vehicle being an extension of your home, unless you live in it. I have never found any law saying that it is an extension of your home though some laws grant certain rights to you for both vehicles and homes. In Texas, one example is the justification for self defense to stop someone from forcibly entering your car. This is a case of what the law recognizes and what people feel not being the same thing.

A great example of the difference between the home and vehicle is the way SCOTUS has ruled on searches for them. Nothing has a greater right to privacy than a home, but the mere fact that a motor vehcile is mobile creates and exception to the warrant requirement for the exigency of losing the car and any evidence.

[RottenApple]

The car is just the container I am using...

So... I suppose that means you have no problems with policy officers entering (uninvited and no exigent circumstances) the house you live in on this hypothetical public street.

"The house is just the container I am using..."

[MAFWG]

Your RV example might be a better analogy. The RV is in a public place, so a weapon in it is in a public place also. It fails when you try to extend it to the shower because that requires a person to view it, not just the mere possession of something. To show how it fails, your home is generally a private place, but long standing precedents have had people convicted of nudity in public if they are deliberately standing nude in front of the window where they can be seen from the street.

So, if I understand your example, the difference between legal nudity in your home (or RV) and illegal nudity is whether you are intentionally displaying yourself to outside view. Extending this to firearms, then if the firearm cannot be viewed by a casual passerby, it should be covered by expectation of privacy, which is similar to the "plain view" doctrine. Having said that, I don't believe any state treats firearms the same as nudity.

This is all moot, since the law is whatever a lawyer can get a judge or jury to agree to. What we are really discussing is what each of us THINKS the law should be relative to privacy. In my case, that can be roughly (very roughly) summed up as "If you can't see it, it's private!"

By the way, my clothes are also a container...

[C-dub]

By that logic, your house is a public place if it fronts on a street.

Hypothetical case: You are in your motor home. Let's say you park your RV in a post office parking lot (which is a public place). If you take a shower in your RV, are you committing public indecency by being nude in a public place?

If your house is a private place, then your car should be also since it is an extension of your home.

Your logic is faulty. My house is on private property, whether it fronts on a public street or not. My logic is that being on a public street makes you in a public place and the container for the weapon is irrelevant.

Your RV example might be a better analogy. The RV is in a public place, so a weapon in it is in a public place also. It fails when you try to extend it to the shower because that requires a person to view it, not just the mere possession of something. To show how it fails, your home is generally a private place, but long standing precedents have had people convicted of nudity in public if they are deliberately standing nude in front of the window where they can be seen from the street.

And I disagree about the vehicle being an extension of your home, unless you live in it. I have never found any law saying that it is an extension of your home though some laws grant certain rights to you for both vehicles and homes. In Texas, one example is the justification for self defense to stop someone from forcibly entering your car. This is a case of what the law recognizes and what people feel not being the same thing.

A great example of the difference between the home and vehicle is the way SCOTUS has ruled on searches for them. Nothing has a greater right to privacy than a home, but the mere fact that a motor vehcile is mobile creates and exception to the warrant requirement for the exigency of losing the car and any evidence.

I thought this had already been decided. Although my house is on private property if there is no fence or other barrier preventing someone from approaching my front door or yard that all of that front is a public space. I thought this had been decided because someone simply knocking on my front door or placing advertisements cannot be arrested for trespassing or walking through my front yard because it is a public place.

[RottenApple]

I thought this had been decided because someone simply knocking on my front door or placing advertisements cannot be arrested for trespassing or walking through my front yard because it is a public place.

I'm not sure this is quite true. While I agree that just walking through your yard, knocking on your door, etc. alone is not enough, if you verbally warn the person that they are on private property or notify them in a different way (signs, purple paint, etc.), then that is warning enough and the person may be trespassed.

At least that is my understanding of Texas law. I could be wrong.

[Flightmare]

My understanding is as follows;

Police (like any member of the public) has a license to approach a door of a home and knock. This assumes that the home does not have a barrier (like a fence with a closed and locked gate). There are special protections afforded to citizens in their own homes.

As for a vehicle on the road, I believe what Steve (srothstein) is trying to convey is that they are treated similar to a suitcase/briefcase. While in public and a police (or any member of the public) is able to collect information based upon what is in "plain view" absent a lawful reason to search. If your car is in a parking lot, there is generally no law preventing someone from peeking in your windows.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do watch a bunch of legal videos on youtube.

[puma guy]

My understanding is as follows;

Police (like any member of the public) has a license to approach a door of a home and knock. This assumes that the home does not have a barrier (like a fence with a closed and locked gate). There are special protections afforded to citizens in their own homes.

As for a vehicle on the road, I believe what Steve (srothstein) is trying to convey is that they are treated similar to a suitcase/briefcase. While in public and a police (or any member of the public) is able to collect information based upon what is in "plain view" absent a lawful reason to search. If your car is in a parking lot, there is generally no law preventing someone from peeking in your windows.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do watch a bunch of legal videos on youtube.

I recall reading either a Federal District court or maybe the SCOTUS ruled that plain view doesn't apply to a container, even a bag, and it requires a search warrant. As I mentioned they will use this ruing for boats on waterways, Motor homes and RV's on roads. There are many people who live in their RV, travel and most likely many have a firearm and perhaps a even BB gun in their vehicle. My advice to them is avoid Minnesota.