Bad decision.

Those that know-isn’t there federal precedent that one’s enclosed conveyance is considered one’s private space--an extension of one’s domicile?

Last name Be Bee? With a BB gun? Really?!

The case of a BB gun under a driver’s seat led the courts to consider whether the interior of a privately owned vehicle is a public place when driven on public property.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the interior of a vehicle is a “public place” if it is driven on public roads, in a case involving a criminal charge over a BB gun found under a driver’s seat.

In May 2022, Kyaw Be Bee of St. Paul was charged with carrying a BB gun in a public place, a gross misdemeanor, after a Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy arrested him on suspicion of stealing a catalytic converter. Bee, 36, had a revoked drivers license and when the deputy searched the car, a BB gun was found under the front seat. Bee was charged because he “did not have a permit to carry a firearm in public.”

The case was initially dismissed in Ramsey County District Court due to lack of probable cause when Judge Leonardo Castro ruled that state law did not clearly define the interior of a privately owned car as a public place. A Minnesota Court of Appeals panel reversed that decision. Bee appealed to the state Supreme Court, which agreed with the Court of Appeals.

The opinion, written by Justice Anne McKeig, was joined by Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and Justices Sarah Hennesy, Gordon Moore, Karl Procaccini and Paul Thissen. Justice Theodora Gaïtas took no part in the case.

In trying to clearly define what exactly is a public place in relation to a person’s vehicle, McKeig’s opinion focused first on Minnesota legal statute concerning the transportation of firearms, explaining how the law allows for legal firearm possession in a vehicle: “A person may only transport a firearm in a motor vehicle under certain conditions, including in a gun case, unloaded and in the closed trunk of the vehicle, or with a valid permit.”

The Supreme Court determined that because this law provides concrete examples of how a firearm can be carried inside a car, it’s clear the Legislature viewed the interior of the car as a public place where regulations could be applied.

McKeig wrote in her opinion: “If ‘public place’ does not include the interior of a motor vehicle on a public roadway, then there would be no reason to specifically exempt certain instances in which a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun would be found in a motor vehicle on a public road.”

She also wrote that the Court of Appeals had adequately determined that “it may be unlawful to carry a BB gun, rifle or shotgun in a motor vehicle” in certain instances.

Just as importantly, the Supreme Court used the case to clearly define what constitutes a public place by focusing on the difference between a geographic place and the objects which occupy it.

McKeig cited Minnesota legislative language that lists specific locations that are not public places for the purposes of the law, such as “a person’s house, place of business, and land” plus gun shops and hunting land. All of these places are “immovable structures and land,” McKeig writes.

She adds that the language makes clear that a public place “generally refers to the geographic rather than spatial location.” For the courts, that means that when a gun is in a car on a public roadway, that roadway is the public place where it is illegal to carry the weapon, not the car using the road. That means a person’s privately owned car is a public place when it is on a public road.

That opinion, mixed with the fact that Bee never argued whether he was on a public road when he was pulled over, means the case will be sent back to district court for further proceedings.

This was the second recent ruling by the state Supreme Court concerning privately owned vehicles and guns in public spaces. In State v. Serbus, from 2021, the court ruled that a drunken driver in a car with a gun in the center console was carrying the weapon in a public space. That opinion, written by former Justice Paul Anderson, was noted in the dismissal of this case at the district court level because it didn’t clearly define public space.

Anderson had written that, “Because a vehicle is mobile and maybe driven in close proximity to people who are in public places, prohibiting an impaired driver from carrying a pistol on a highway would promote the protective purpose of the statute. But excluding an impaired driver from the reach of the ban would expose members of the public to greater danger.”

Opposite in NM. My vehicle is extended domain- treated like part of my home.

Interesting.... if a young couple decides to have fun in the back seat of a car, van, or perhaps even a motor home for that matter, they can now be charged with having sex in a public place?

What if someone gets stuck in a snow storm and has to relieve themself in a container while in the car, can they be charged with urinating in a public place?

Not sure about Minnesota but here smoking in a public place is illegal, so now you can't smoke a cigarette, cigar, or pipe in your car?

MN has some of the most fucked laws in existence.
I can drive across 9 or so different states without any problems until I get to MN.
My car then becomes a criminal hot spot.
Illinois has better gun rights when driving than MN.

Neat, people can sit in any one of those Justice's cars if said car is public parking lot and a BB gun is a firearm. Learn something new everyday.

Interesting, but inconsistent with 4th Amendment precedent. In Carroll v US, the SCOTUS made sn exception to the search warrant requirement for cars, finding that because they are mobile, it made getting a search warrant impractical. It therefore promulgated what’s been coined the Carroll Doctrine, which permits the warrantless search of cars in public places, but still requires probable cause. This is important because if it intended to hold that cars were public places, no PC would be required. It also necessarily means the Court found a reasonable expectation of privacy, because without which, no PC would be necessary.

States can pass laws that provide more rights, like a state that passes a law extending the domicile concept to cars, but it cannot restrict rights provided for in the US Constitution. Those rughts are the floor, not the ceiling. Seems this decision, beyond being logically ridiculous, doesn’t square with the Fourth Amendment.

If I recall, motorhomes are treated more like homes than cars, but I can’t recall the specific case off the top of my bead.

quote:

Originally posted by JDSigManiac:
Interesting, but inconsistent with 4th Amendment precedent. In Carroll v US, the SCOTUS made sn exception to the search warrant requirement for cars, finding that because they are mobile, it made getting a search warrant impractical. It therefore promulgated what’s been coined the Carroll Doctrine, which permits the warrantless search of cars in public places, but still requires probable cause. This is important because if it intended to hold that cars were public places, no PC would be required. It also necessarily means the Court found a reasonable expectation of privacy, because without which, no PC would be necessary.

States can pass laws that provide more rights, like a state that passes a law extending the domicile concept to cars, but it cannot restrict rights provided for in the US Constitution. Those rughts are the floor, not the ceiling. Seems this decision, beyond being logically ridiculous, doesn’t square with the Fourth Amendment.

If I recall, motorhomes are treated more like homes than cars, but I can’t recall the specific case off the top of my bead.

A motorhome is a home if it is treated like one (such as hooked up to utilities). California v. Carney 471 US 386 is the case.

Although I'm not convinced that I agree with your logic. This decision appears to say exactly what Carroll does...that the interior of the vehicle is less protected than other spaces. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think that the reasoning is more alike to Carroll than different.

Boats are considered domicile in NJ.

I guess if you are ever attacked while in your car, the castle doctrine won't apply until you 1st retreat to your trunk.

I honestly think about moving out of MN on a daily basis - the stupidity and Walz never quit. I have a beautiful home in Crosslake and hate the thought of leaving, but taxes, the winters, Walz, libtards, etc … might make me walk South.

MDS

Next up... "Your house is on the side of the road."

This falls under "search incident to arrest" where officers can search the area within the arrestee's span of control for weapons or evidence. There's lots of case law about this.

Somebody argued that case poorly.

The argument of allowable search could have been along the line of driver with revoked license or, suspected of having committed theft and being searched for officer safety.

arguing on the grounds the interior of a vehicle is a public place, that will get scrutinized by SCOTUS

I’m still pondering considering a bb gun a firearm. My vintage Red Ryder? Seriously?

quote:

Originally posted by Tn226:
I’m still pondering considering a bb gun a firearm. My vintage Red Ryder? Seriously?

Well , most cities have an ordnance forbidding the shooting of guns inside the city limits . It usually applies to BB guns , etc.

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:

quote:

Originally posted by Tn226:
I’m still pondering considering a bb gun a firearm. My vintage Red Ryder? Seriously?

Well , most cities have an ordnance forbidding the shooting of guns inside the city limits . It usually applies to BB guns , etc.

San Diego is the same, along with bows.

Plus, a BB gun can shoot yer eye out!

quote:

Originally posted by john1:
This falls under "search incident to arrest" where officers can search the area within the arrestee's span of control for weapons or evidence. There's lots of case law about this.

that's not in question here.

this is

quote:

Kyaw Be Bee of St. Paul was charged with carrying a BB gun in a public place

Sure they found the BB gun during a legal search, but was Mr Be Bee in a public place or not since he can't carry in public places, only private.

The MN Gun Owners Caucus put out a statement regarding this. The ruling applies to the specific statute that governs the carrying and transport of firearms and BB guns where they are generally required to be unloaded and cased. (Does not apply to PTC holders). The way the law is written, there are a bunch of exceptions, but vehicles are not listed. The remedy seems to be adding that to the statute as written rather than a higher court challenge. It was not appealed on 4A grounds, but rather the text of the law. Dumb law, but it doesn't open your vehicle up to search or give you grief if transporting unloaded in a case.

My understanding is that pneumatic guns are not considered firearms under the GCA. This is why you can buy them on the Internet and have them delivered to your door without filing paperwork or involving an FFL. There is no "fire" generated in shooting a air-powered gun. Now I'm sure that somebody has invented a BB caliber gun that is propelled by a blank cartridge, primer, or percussion cap, but I have never seen one that wasn't air-powered, and many if not most of them are pumped up by hand, or use feeble CO2 cartridges.

I'm not forgetting you PCP fans out there, but don't most of these shoot pellets rather than BBs?

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
My understanding is that pneumatic guns are not considered firearms under the GCA. This is why you can buy them on the Internet and have them delivered to your door without filing paperwork or involving an FFL. There is no "fire" generated in shooting a air-powered gun. Now I'm sure that somebody has invented a BB caliber gun that is propelled by a blank cartridge, primer, or percussion cap, but I have never seen one that wasn't air-powered, and many if not most of them are pumped up by hand, or use feeble CO2 cartridges.

I'm not forgetting you PCP fans out there, but don't most of these shoot pellets rather than BBs?

But they still fall under most local ordinances that prohibit firearms , guns , weapons , or whatever you choose to call it .