MN Permit to Carry Ruling

If you legal carry a gun in Minnesota, the MN Supreme Court has made a new ruling on the duty to retreat portion of the law. Make sure you understand this change!

One of many links to this story:

http://www.fox9.com/news/mn-supreme-court-duty-retreat-ruling

MN Supreme Court duty to retreat ruling
By Maury GloverPublished July 31, 2024 9:53pm CDTGun LawsFOX 9

MN Supreme Court sets ‘duty to retreat’ precedent
The Minnesota Supreme Court reached a split decision that ruled a person who is claiming to act in self-defense has a duty to retreat before using or even displaying a deadly weapon when confronted with a threat.

(FOX 9) – When the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld two second-degree assault with a deadly weapon convictions against a man with a machete who was threatened by a man with a knife at a Minneapolis light rail station, the state’s highest court also set a new precedent involving Minnesota’s self-defense laws.

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.

But according to Rob Doar, the vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the ruling means anyone who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense must look for a reasonable way to retreat before even showing a weapon, or they can be charged with a crime.

“Minnesota is one of the states that does have a duty to retreat. But now with this decision, we are literally the only state in the country that requires you to retreat before you even present a force option,” said Doar.

In a dissenting opinion, one of the justices wrote not only is the court’s decision unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human nature.

That’s a view Doar agrees with, saying in the moment, most people don’t have time to look for a way to retreat before grabbing or at least showing their weapon to defend themselves.

“I don’t think that this is a practical way that a self-defense encounter would unfold. If you’re confronted with a threat, you’re going to want to mitigate that threat as soon as possible,” said Doar.

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state’s self-defense laws.

Thanks for keeping us in the loop Jon! Interesting to read through this and I’m glad to read that Doar brought up some valid points. I’m curious though, in a hectic flight-or-fight situation, how exactly could it be proved that someone looked for an way to retreat before showing their weapon? It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove. So how do you prove that you looked beyond simply stating that you looked and didn’t see a way to retreat in time and you had to show your weapon out of fearing for your life. It seems a little too gray.

How does this work if you see someone else in trouble? Are you to assume whether they can or cannot retreat? Are you not able to help them with your unit?

Thats confusing. Last time I checked a citizen could still intervene if a violent felony is being committed. Now we just get to watch as people are beaten, robbed, or murdered, including ourselves, when people like me are too fat too run away in the first place.

That’s a good question. As usual, MN making goofy a$$ laws…

I don’t like it,

All this is nothing more than politicians being politicians. They make rules and laws that simply don’t make sense in real world situations. I know if the day ever comes that I’m in a situation where I need to defend myself or a family member using deadly force, all these laws are the last thing that will be on my mind. I’m simply going to act the way I feel is best and take my chances in court. As the saying goes “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”

fishthumper wrote:

All this is nothing more than politicians being politicians.

Actually, this is Judges being politicians.

-J.

As far as stepping in and defending someone else, That’s a slippery slope. I’m not real sure if that’s a situation I would put myself into. I guess I’d have to make a decision at the time depending on the situation. I know I would hope someone else would act to help someone else that I know if there was a situation they were in. I would like to think that thought would come to my mind if placed in a situation. Just not sure. Hope I never need to find out.

Jon Jordan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
All this is nothing more than politicians being politicians.

Actually, this is Judges being politicians.

-J.

In Minnesota Judges are either elected or appointed by the Governor – Either way that makes them politicians in my mind.

Pretty crazy this is the ruling at the supreme court level. Does this extend into your home as well? As far as third party goes thats something that would never be worth getting involved in with the legal liability.

Wouldn’t your defense be simply that you thought he could run faster than you hence I couldn’t retreat.

This is a serious topic but my mind instantly references south park deer hunting

Is taking a step back to square up and aim sufficient?
I think the point they are really trying to make is don’t defend yourself in Minneapolis or St Paul.
Better yet don’t carry a weapon and be defenseless.

Retreat is a Vague term. If confronted by a intruder in my house and he’s between me and a exit door is simply retreating as far as my bedroom enough or am I expected to break a window and jump out prior to using deadly force. Once again I’d have to take my chances with a jury and let them decide their defination of retreat.

fishthumper wrote:

If confronted by a intruder in my house

You have no duty to retreat while in your own home. Fire away!

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
If confronted by a intruder in my house

You have no duty to retreat while in your own home. Fire away!

-J.

Really. I was always taught that no matter where you are at, you have to attempt to retreat prior to using deadly force. As far as I’m aware Minnesota has always been a duty to retreat state. Has something changed or have you never had to retreat within your home?

In your home the “Castle Doctrine” is in effect. (Google Search – mn gun law – castle doctrine law)

Out in public, Mn does NOT for a “Stand your ground” law. Thus, you have a duty to retreat.

-J.

I thought Castle was revoked when that guy shot those kids with the shotgun like 10 years ago but it appears its still in effect. Learning lots of new things today.

Dead criminals make bad witnesses.

Riverrat wrote:

Thats confusing. Last time I checked a citizen could still intervene if a violent felony is being committed. Now we just get to watch as people are beaten, robbed, or murdered, including ourselves, when people like me are too fat too run away in the first place.

This is something that we all (as responsible CCW’ers) need to be very careful with. Interjecting ourselves into a situation in public, with strangers, where we have no idea how (or why) something started could wind up very poorly.

Regarding the duty to retreat, that can look very different situationally. If I’m by myself, I’m a lot more mobile and have way more options than if I’m somewhere with my wife and kids.

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state’s self-defense laws.

Who was teaching people to “show their weapon” in the first place?

Either you are in imminent danger and shoot or you aren’t and the gun stays holstered. This seems like the correct interpretation of what the law has always been imo.

Riverrat wrote:

I thought Castle was revoked when that guy shot those kids with the shotgun like 10 years ago but it appears its still in effect. Learning lots of new things today.

Byron Smith? That dude was a psycho and although he claimed castle doctrine as a defense what he did was not at all covered by it.

Reef W wrote:

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state’s self-defense laws.

Who was teaching people to “show their weapon” in the first place?

Either you are in imminent danger and shoot or you aren’t and the gun stays holstered. This seems like the correct interpretation of what the law has always been imo.

Agreed.

Reef W wrote:

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state’s self-defense laws.

Who was teaching people to “show their weapon” in the first place?

Either you are in imminent danger and shoot or you aren’t and the gun stays holstered. This seems like the correct interpretation of what the law has always been imo.

I agree. Unless I’m missing something this doesn’t seem like real new information. Sounds like the ruling just further clarifies what is already law. But I guess I’d have to read the law and this ruling to be sure.

Reef W wrote:

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state’s self-defense laws.

Who was teaching people to “show their weapon” in the first place?

Either you are in imminent danger and shoot or you aren’t and the gun stays holstered. This seems like the correct interpretation of what the law has always been imo.

I was thinking the same.

If someone comes into my home attempting to hurt my family, I don’t care what laws are on the books or what consequences I will face. I’ll break any law if it means protecting my family, and will deal with the consequences after.

As for public encounters and a duty to retreat…I don’t carry to play cowboy or Superman. Call me self-centered, but it’s my family above all. If I get involved in a situation, it likely has a negative impact on my family (could get injured, killed, or end up in prison – especially in MN).

Jon Jordan wrote:

In your home the “Castle Doctrine” is in effect. (Google Search – mn gun law – castle doctrine law)

Out in public, Mn does NOT for a “Stand your ground” law. Thus, you have a duty to retreat.

-J.

learned something new. I thought I was taught even under the “Castle Doctrine” you were required to retreat if possible.

waldo9190 wrote:

This is something that we all (as responsible CCW’ers) need to be very careful with. Interjecting ourselves into a situation in public, with strangers, where we have no idea how (or why) something started could wind up very poorly.

Regarding the duty to retreat, that can look very different situationally. If I’m by myself, I’m a lot more mobile and have way more options than if I’m somewhere with my wife and kids.

I guess an example is if you see someone at gunpoint or a gal getting the livin snot beat out of her by some dude. Do you just yell “run”?

Or what about if you interrupt or are indirectly engaged in an armed robbery? This stuff happens every day…

Nothing new here. You could always defend yourself form imminent harm in your own house. “Carry” on.