Restoring Minnesota Firearm Rights

Restoring Minnesota Firearm Rights. Our lawyers know how to get it done. Most people know that upon a conviction for a crime, a person may be sentenced to jail, to prison, a fine, be required to pay restitution for losses sustained by a victim, or a combination of these. But there are also numerous collateral consequences that can stem from a criminal conviction, including immigration consequences, loss of professional licensing, inclusion in a predatory or sex offender database, or the loss of firearm rights – the rights to possess, transfer, and own firearms and ammunition. Our attorneys are experienced in restoring Minnesota firearm rights. In this post, we discuss that topic.

In Minnesota, a person convicted of a “crime of violence” is ineligible to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition for the remainder of the person’s lifetime. Any person who is convicted of a crime of violence and is thereafter found guilty of possessing a firearm or ammunition may be sentenced to prison for up to 15 years, a $30,000 fine, or both. There are many crimes constituting crimes of violence, and they are all listed at Minnesota Statutes Section 624.712, subd. 5. Specifically, a “crime of violence” under this section of law includes any felony violation of the following offenses in Minnesota:

murder in the first, second, or third degree
manslaughter in the first degree or second degree
aiding suicide and aiding attempted suicide
assault in the first degree, second, third, fourth, or fifth degree
domestic assault
domestic assault by strangulation
crimes committed for the benefit of a gang
use of drugs to injure or facilitate crime
simple robbery
aggravated robbery
kidnapping
false imprisonment
solicitation, inducement, and promotion of prostitution
sex trafficking
criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, second, third, or fourth degree
malicious punishment of a child
neglect or endangerment of a child
commission of crime while wearing or possessing a bullet-resistant vest
arson in the first degree or second degree
burglary in the first or second degree
drive-by shooting
unlawfully owning, possessing, operating a machine gun or short-barreled shotgun
riot
terroristic threats
harassment
shooting at a public transit vehicle or facility
drug offenses
an attempt to commit any of the above

As stated above, a felony conviction for any of these offenses creates a lifetime prohibition on a person’s ability to own and possess firearms and ammunition in Minnesota. Unless the person’s firearm rights are restored, the person is not only prohibited from possessing guns, but may be charged with a felony for doing so (this is sometimes colloquially referred to as the crime of “felon in possession”).

Petitioning for a Restoration of Firearm Rights

So how does a person go about restoring firearm rights in Minnesota? Our attorneys know exactly what to do. The very same statute that criminalizes convicted felons for possessing firearms or ammunition also creates a statutory petitioning process that such a person may utilize in seeking a restoration of their firearm rights in Minnesota. The statute, Section 609.165, states that

[a] person prohibited by state law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition because of a conviction or a delinquency adjudication for committing a crime of violence may petition a court to restore the person’s ability to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms and otherwise deal with firearms and ammunition.

The court may grant the relief sought if the person shows good cause to do so and the person has been released from physical confinement.

If a petition is denied, the person may not file another petition until three years have elapsed without the permission of the court.

Notice that the statute allowing for restoration for firearm rights is pretty brief. It does not contain a wealth of guidance to the courts, stating only that a court may grant restoration if the person petitioning shows “good cause” to do so. So just what exactly is good cause?

There is only one precedential case from the Minnesota appellate courts discussing what “good cause” means. There are plenty of nonprecedential cases, but these do not have the effect of law, and can be relied upon only for their persuasive value. The published case, Averback v. State, was decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2010. Because the firearm restoration statute does not define “good cause,” the court of appeals in Averback looked to definitions elsewhere to aid it in defining the terms. Examining a public assistance statute along with Black’s Law Dictionary, the court of appeals concluded that “good cause is a reason for taking an action that, in legal terms, is legally sufficient, and, in ordinary terms, is justified in the context of surrounding circumstances.” This did not add a whole lot, and courts have been left ever since to decide cases with fairly wide discretion. This does not mean that “good cause” is whatever a district court says it is. A number of nonprecedential cases, though without the force of law, do guide the district courts in their work.

One such case is Anderson v. State, a case decided by the court of appeals in 2016, and which affirmed a district court’s granting of a petition for the restoration of firearm rights. In Anderson, the petitioner was ineligible to possess firearms due to two felony third-degree assault convictions. The convictions arose from incidents that occurred in 1992 and 2001, and Anderson’s petition for restoration was brought in the district court in 2014, which was seven years after his discharge from probation for the 2001 assault case. In a memorandum accompanying his petition in 2014, Anderson argued that restoration would be appropriate because neither of his two assault convictions involved the use of a firearm, because he had successfully completed probation after each of his prior convictions, because he had not committed any additional crimes in the 11 years since his second assault conviction, and because he had made positive changes in his life. Anderson’s petition noted that he would like to use a firearm for hunting.

The prosecutor’s office opposed Anderson’s petition, arguing that restoration would be inappropriate because of Anderson’s criminal history, including the two assault convictions and a felony DWI, because of the legislative intent that persons convicted of crimes of violence should be subject to a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms, and because a desire to hunt was an insufficient reason for restoration. Despite the prosecutor’s arguments, the district court granted the petition on the following bases: neither of Anderson’s disqualifying convictions involved the use of a firearm, he completed chemical-dependency treatment, he had not committed any crimes since completing treatment, he had been married for several years, he completed his college education and was gainfully employed, he was a homeowner, his other civil rights had been restored, and he wished to hunt. The district court in Anderson viewed the above facts to constitute “good cause” to grant restoration. And the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order.

A Firearms Restoration Lawyer Can Help

Every case is unique, and attention to detail matters. Our lawyers are well-versed in this area of the law, and we have obtained successful results for clients in a variety of gun-related cases, including firearm restoration cases. Minnesota is home to an abounding population of hunters and fishermen. If you have made a mistake, it doesn’t need to define the rest of your life. If you would like to speak with us, contact us. Our firm provides free consultations so you can determine whether a lawyer from our office is the right fit for your case. You can reach us at 612-767-9643, or by filling out the form below.