MN laws?

[vuker]

anybody got the down low on knives in Minnesota? I've looked at a lot of laws and nothing confirms what i heard about the "3 inch blades are legal" rumor going about my friends. most of my buddies carry knives though they aren't fixed like mine. so i was wondering if anyone could help me out...

thanks.

 

[Reffy]

It would be nice to have the search feature available for posts like this. I know I've done this one before. But alas here we go....

All dirks, autos, and balisongs are barred from any sort of carry. Regarding folding and fixed knives: The three inch rule simply isn't true. In actuality there is not hard and fast rule of what length of knife is banned. What is considered a weapon is very much defined by the feelings of those who will be judging you, police, judges, and jury. Use great scrutiny when deciding to carry a knife to ensure that there is no way for a reasonable individual to see that knife an assume you are carrying it for self defense. DO not carry tactical blades. Do not carry hunting blades in the city. Big knives are scary knives. A fixed blade knife...very risky, lemme see a picture and I'll give you my best estimation.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Do not listen to that guy, he has no idea what he is talking about. ^^^

Find out the laws for yourself. A simple google search will allow you to read them.

There is no state blade length law. There may be different rules within the Twin Cities.

Autos and brass knuckles are not legal in MN, but most everything else is.

 

[Reffy]

Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you are?
In my estimation a statement such as that strongly implies that you are someone does indeed, apparently contrary to myself, know what they are talking about. So please, lay down your credentials so perhaps I can stop making a fool of myself.

I put a decent amount of work into researching these posts before I make them. Granted I am in no way comprehensive or infallible, but virtually no lawyer is. I not only look at the statues themselves but case law and I've even done little profiles of judges within areas requested. I'm also a Boston legal student. As such I do feel somewhat qualified providing these answers. If not completely or overly qualified, surely qualified enough for an Internet forum.

Might I also point out that it seems I was correct in my description of the laws. You, he whom has asserted himself the authority on the subject above myself at least, seems to have come to virtually the same conclusion as I have. So I am left pondering the same question: where do you derive your qualifications? And if you have none, I think I deserve an apology.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you are?
In my estimation a statement such as that strongly implies that you are someone does indeed, apparently contrary to myself, know what they are talking about. So please, lay down your credentials so perhaps I can stop making a fool of myself.

I put a decent amount of work into researching these posts before I make them. Granted I am in no way comprehensive or infallible, but virtually no lawyer is. I not only look at the statues themselves but case law and I've even done little profiles of judges within areas requested. I'm also a Boston legal student. As such I do feel somewhat qualified providing these answers. If not completely or overly qualified, surely qualified enough for an Internet forum.

Might I also point out that it seems I was correct in my description of the laws. You, he whom has asserted himself the authority on the subject above at least myself, seems to have come to virtually the same conclusion as I have. So I am left pondering the same question: where do you derive your qualifications?

Who am I? Obviously someone who doesn't confuse legality with deeply ingrained sheeple instincts.

Your post was full of nonsense. . . as seen here:

All dirks, autos, and balisongs are barred from any sort of carry.

False. Only Autos are illegal.

Use great scrutiny when deciding to carry a knife to ensure that there is no way for a reasonable individual to see that knife an assume you are carrying it for self defense.

DO not carry tactical blades. Do not carry hunting blades in the city. Big knives are scary knives. A fixed blade knife...very risky, lemme see a picture and I'll give you my best estimation.

Any reasonable individual is rolling his eyes about now.

You say you are a student in Boston? Perhaps that explains why you are so filled with fear and foolish notions.

 

[bobby.t]

I wonder exactly how many classes our Boston law student has taken that touched on Minnesota knife laws.

Actually, maybe there was a class or two on how future Taxachusetts lawyers can get the midwest to invalidate the 2nd Amendment as efficiently as it has...

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

I wonder exactly how many classes our Boston law student has taken that touched on Minnesota knife laws.

Actually, maybe there was a class or two on how future Taxachusetts lawyers can get the midwest to invalidate the 2nd Amendment as efficiently as it has...

I looked through his post history. Doesn't seem to have much interest in knives, aside from posting misinformation in this subforum.

 

[Gunfucius]

Minnesota
updated 11/16/05

- Section 609.02 Definitions.
Subdivision 6. Dangerous weapon. "Dangerous weapon" means
any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed
as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm,
any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or
instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be
used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily
harm, or any fire that is used to produce death or great bodily
harm.


- Section 609.66. Dangerous weapons.
Subdivision 1.
Acts prohibited. Whoever does any of the following is
guilty of a crime... (4) manufactures, transfers, or
possesses metal knuckles or a switch blade knife opening
automatically; or
(5) possesses any other dangerous article or substance
for the purpose of being used unlawfully as a weapon
against another...

Subdivision 1c. Felony; furnishing a dangerous weapon.
Whoever recklessly furnishes a person with a dangerous weapon in
conscious disregard of a known substantial risk that the object
will be possessed or used in furtherance of a felony crime of
violence is guilty of a felony...

Subdivision 1d. Possession on school property... whoever
possesses, stores, or keeps a dangerous weapon or uses or
brandishes a replica firearm or a BB gun while knowingly on
school property is guilty of a felony... [exception for gun
and knife shows held on school property]

Subdivision 1g. Felony; possession in courthouse or certain
state buildings. (a) A person who commits either of the
following acts is guilty of a felony...
(1) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives
within any courthouse complex; or
(2) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives
in any state building within the Capitol Area described in
chapter 15B, other than the National Guard Armory.


Subdivision 2. Exceptions. Nothing in this section
prohibits the possession of the articles mentioned by
museums or collectors of art or for other lawful purposes
of public exhibition.

There ya go.

 

[Reffy]

First and foremost. Dirks and balisongs are almost certainly illegal. They are illegal under much regional law, and would by any estimation be considered per se dangerous weapons and thus are illegal.

As for these "sheeple instincts" you assign me. Let me assure you, I in no way feel that MN's legal environment is agreeable. Indeed, as you said, it represents nothing more than sheeple instincts. But one cannot simply dismiss such instincts. May I remind you, you are being judged by these sheeple. Such being very much the case, past decisions, aka legal precedent, are all the important when determining legality. From this precedent I have dervied very very very strong conclusions regarding the knife laws of MN.

We may agree, legality such as they have in MN is silly. But as men wishing to remain free, we should also agree to live within the confines of the law as it is enacted and enforced. Let me explain further. While I hold that the 2nd amendment allows me to hold all but a nuclear weapon. If a judge holds different, he is, for all practical purposes correct. If a judge or jury holds differently you will be punished. And is that not what matters? Law is not as simple as what you read, it involves a great many things. Especially in this day of liberal legal scholarship, which I whole heartedly disagree with. Even if I find MA's laws to be wrong in all aspects, until it is appropriate I will follow that law the best I can.

It would be well for you to shun your judgmental eye and instead read into the legal argument I make. Although seeing as you have presented no qualifications are requested I suppose I can assume you have none. May we both assume that perhaps I may more or less know what I am talking about?
Either way, I have no desire to hold law class in this forum. Unless you are claim expertise, or sound legal argument, I will consider this a matter of lack of understanding of practical law, and perhaps a little undue judgment. Safe travels.

 

[bdws1975]

dude, you spoke in such generalities....

almost certainly illegal??

what the heck does that mean. It either is or isn't and the difference is quite important.

My guess is the only legal courses you have had have been a 'law and society' class. Perhaps you should have paid more attention.

First and foremost. Dirks and balisongs are almost certainly illegal. They are illegal under much regional law, and would by any estimation be considered per se dangerous weapons and thus are illegal.

As for these "sheeple instincts" you assign me. Let me assure you, I in no way feel that MN's legal environment is agreeable. Indeed, as you said, it represents nothing more than sheeple instincts. But one cannot simply dismiss such instincts. May I remind you, you are being judged by these sheeple. Such being very much the case, past decisions, aka legal precedent, are all the important when determining legality. From this precedent I have dervied very very very strong conclusions regarding the knife laws of MN.

We may agree, legality such as they have in MN is silly. But as men wishing to remain free, we should also agree to live within the confines of the law as it is enacted and enforced.

It would be well for you to shun your judgmental eye and instead read into the legal argument I make. Although seeing as you have presented no qualifications are requested I suppose I can assume you have none. May we both assume that perhaps I may more or less know what I am talking about?
Either way, I have no desire to hold law class in this forum. Unless you are claim expertise I will consider this a matter of lack of understanding of practical law, and perhaps a little undue judgment. Safe travels.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

(4) manufactures, transfers, or
possesses metal knuckles or a switch blade knife opening
automatically; or

this subsection appears to allow balis, or at least doesnt generally prohibit them, since they are not opened "automatically".

unless dirks are mentioned in another section, there is no restriction or definition of a dirk in the law.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

First and foremost. Dirks and balisongs are almost certainly illegal. They are illegal under much regional law, and would by any estimation be considered per se dangerous weapons and thus are illegal.

yes, this is certainly an odd crawfish.

they may be illegal in certain cities, counties, towns, etc. but unless the sections posted above are inaccurate, you are wrong.

municipal/county laws may be, and usually are, stricter than state laws. the original question was in regard to the state law, not a regional law as you mention.

per the letter of the law posted, it would be difficult to support an argument for them being illegal.

ANYTHING can be a dangerous weapon if used as such. simple carry and possession does not necessarily imply intent. in and of itself, i cant see how a bali would be illegal.

 

[Gunfucius]

First and foremost. Dirks and balisongs are almost certainly illegal. They are illegal under much regional law, and would by any estimation be considered per se dangerous weapons and thus are illegal.

Actually, one shouldn't have a problem with balisongs in MN, as they weren't designed as weapons, and therefore do not fit the definition of "dangerous weapon". Also, they aren't considered a "switchblade," due to the fact that they do not "open[ing] automatically".

 

[MORIMOTOM]

We may agree, legality such as they have in MN is silly. But as men wishing to remain free, we should also agree to live within the confines of the law as it is enacted and enforced. Let me explain further. While I hold that the 2nd amendment allows me to hold all but a nuclear weapon. If a judge holds different, he is, for all practical purposes correct. If a judge or jury holds differently you will be punished. And is that not what matters? Law is not as simple as what you read, it involves a great many things. Especially in this day of liberal legal scholarship, which I whole heartedly disagree with. Even if I find MA's laws to be wrong in all aspects, until it is appropriate I will follow that law the best I can.

here you appear to be referring to some type of case law. if so, please cite.

what matters here is the letter of the law, not some arbitrary or imaginary scenario you dream up.

of course, follow the law. no one is suggesting otherwise. but to properly follow any law, one must first be educated in the specific law and the specific language therein.

It would be well for you to shun your judgmental eye and instead read into the legal argument I make. Although seeing as you have presented no qualifications are requested I suppose I can assume you have none. May we both assume that perhaps I may more or less know what I am talking about?
Either way, I have no desire to hold law class in this forum. Unless you are claim expertise, or sound legal argument, I will consider this a matter of lack of understanding of practical law, and perhaps a little undue judgment. Safe travels.

your opinion does not a legal argument make.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Unless you are claim expertise, or sound legal argument, I will consider this a matter of lack of understanding of practical law, and perhaps a little undue judgment. Safe travels.

Unless you are claim expertise I will consider this a matter of lack of understanding of practical law, and perhaps a little undue judgment. Safe travels.

You cannot write a coherent sentence, even after attempting to fix it?

Impressive.

 

[bdws1975]

You cannot write a coherent sentence, even after attempting to fix it?

Impressive.

dude, stop picking on him. He's obviously challenged

 

[Reffy]

No, my only schooling has not been limited to a single law and society class. However, my analysis provides, to my best estimation, what one can expect if one had to deal with the MN legal system. In the same way a "gravity knife" in NY can and has included a balisong, when we all know the definition of a gravity knife nowhere near encompasses balisongs...

ha. It seems you all have drawn me to do what I said I would not. It takes time enough to do the research it takes to come up with my conclusions, I do not have time to explain exactly where or how I came to such conclusions. This is my legal analysis, take it or leave it, I assure you it is far more accurate than simply reading the statutes and concluding.
I am simply trying to help, I do not believe I deserve such hostility. But such candor of character is surely revealing. I dare say I expected more from my fellow hobbyists. For god's sake, in all seriousness you pointed out a typo! I feel as if I am back in elementary school.

But as respectfully requested I will provide to you a portion of the case law, and supplementary statues that I have used to derive my conclusions. MORIMOTOMI, for the sake of simplicity I have not included out of state case law, nor the case law regarding the use of out of state precedent in weapons cases. I also did not include some misc legal opinions (2 very relevant, 1 not so relevant) I found because they cannot be found on line. I now consider this matter to be closed.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances S 393.90 (2006)
Duluth, Minn., Legislative Code S 49-10 (2005)
In re the Welfare of C. R. M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000)

 

[bdws1975]

OH NO!!!!!

Honestly, not much analysis going on here bud.

I am sure you are a nice guy, but a critical thinker me thinks not.

You are NOT HELPING BY PROPOGATING FUZZY THINKING ABOUT LAWS THAT PERTAIN TO CRITICAL, LEGAL ISSUES.

STOP POSTING UNEDUCATED 'OPINIONS' ABOUT THINGS THAT AFFECT REAL PEOPLE.

How's that for closed??

No my only schooling has not been only a law and society class. However, my analysis provides, to my best estimation, what one can expect if one had to deal with the MN legal system. In the same way a "gravity knife" in NY can and has included a balisong, when we all know the definition of a gravity knife nowhere near compasses balisongs...

ha. It seems you all have drawn me to do what I said I would not. It takes time enough to do the research it takes to come up with my conclusions, I do not have time to explain exactly where or how I came to such conclusions. This is my legal analysis, take it or leave it, I assure you it is far more accurate than simply reading the statutes and concluding.
I am simply trying to help, I do not believe I deserve such hostility.

But as requested I will provide to you a portion of the case law, and supplementary statues that I have used to derive my conclusions. I now consider this matter to be closed.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances S 393.90 (2006)
Duluth, Minn., Legislative Code S 49-10 (2005)
In re the Welfare of C. R. M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000)

 

[Gunfucius]

Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances S 393.90 (2006)
Duluth, Minn., Legislative Code S 49-10 (2005)
In re the Welfare of C. R. M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000)

Don't those only apply to the cities of Minneapolis and Duluth, respectively?

 

[bdws1975]

Don't those only apply to the cities of Minneapolis and Duluth, respectively?

stop being so picky, per se