Target Accident

Personally never seen anyone open carry in Minnesota. The guys do just freak people out. Makes those who do carry look bad. Meaning it always portrayed negatively in the news reports.

-J.

Not many do here is wi. Most inner city dwellers freak out. Every now and then a news article pops up here where people called the cops because “they have a gun”. Most of those resulted not a disorderly conduct fine. BS in my opinion, but when you have ultra liberal cops that need to issue a fine….

Randy, that “blanket” statement was made about the open carry people I have had contact with. All have been under 25 and looking for attention. As far as being cited for disorderly when people freak out about open carry, I have never seen or heard of that happening. Not sure how it would make it through court with a guilty verdict unless there was more to it. And you can’t compare open carry out in public to being out in the woods. Totally different.
DT

When I’ve seen people open carry in the cities, I’ve also thought “cowboy” so I don’t think it’s a stretch to be judgmental. Not saying it’s right, but it’s a stereotype at best. Put me an hour north and I see it, I don’t think twice.

The good news, I rarely see open carry in cities. The liberals here would lose their minds.

This story is just another reason we can all agree, a weapon on your person and lots of practice is a good thing. Feel bad for those who were harmed by this crew of evil.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/crime/2015/12/15/4-charged-in-crime-spree-including-st-paul-moms-murder/77360790/

DT – I understand and respect your position. When I read through all these posts, that just jumped out at me. I don’t carry open often, but when I do, I don’t think about it for a second to stop at the gas station, or anywhere else. I guess because I’m legal (with the exception of a DC) and I have no ill intent, I just don’t think about it. Just a shame that kids half my age project themselves in a manor that would give an officer a preconceived perception.

Comparing woods to city – I go straight from one to the other.

deertracker wrote:

Not sure how it would make it through court with a guilty verdict unless there was more to it. And you can’t compare open carry out in public to being out in the woods. Totally different.
DT

Just because I love our Liberal City of Nonsense, here is from the City of Madison’s website regarding an incident back a couple years ago

I just shake my head at this statement. Maybe no one else sees what is wrong here……
The DC statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Chief Wray wants to make clear: It is the department’s wish that concerned citizens call 911 when they see armed subjects.

The Madison Police Department (MPD) has conducted a review of an incident that took place this past Saturday night at Culver’s Frozen Custard restaurant, 4301 East Towne Blvd. Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC). Accordingly, DC citations will be issued, and Obstructing a Peace Officer tickets given to two will be rescinded.

Officers were dispatched to the restaurant around 6:50 p.m. after a 62-year old Madison woman called 911. She had just observed several men with handguns in holsters enter the crowded Culver’s restaurant. In her initial statement to officers, she stated” I didn’t know what the law was, and I thought I should at least call so the police can come and check it out cause I didn’t want to be that one person that saw guns and didn’t call, and then have something terrible happen”. In a follow-up interview with detectives, she further stated that she thought it was very odd that these individuals with guns would be at a family place. She noted she felt somewhat “rattled” and also “felt uneasy” about the subjects having the handguns at the family restaurant. She went on to say that they all appeared calm, but noted “people who shoot up restaurants also look calm before it happens.” She did state that she was very concerned that if she didn’t make the call and something did happen, she would feel horrible.

The MPD made contact Saturday night with the five men who were openly carrying handguns. Upon officers’ requests, three of five produced identification so that officers could determine they were not convicted criminals. Two of five refused to produce identification and were issued Obstructing a Peace Officer citations. It was determined they were not felons and handguns were returned.

The officers were faced with an ambiguous situation. When responding to investigate suspicious – or potentially dangerous – circumstances, police must:

• Preserve or Restore Order and Public Safety.
• Investigate whether a crime had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed.
• Protect the Constitutional Rights of those involved.

The complainant’s statement clearly reveals that she recognized the potential for violence from these armed men, and it was this fear that motivated her call to police. On the basis of this fact, the MPD will be rescinding the 2 obstructing citations. They were issued in error. Instead, citations for City Ordinance DC will be given to those who engaged in the behavior that led to the need for police to be called.

The DC statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance

Chief Wray wants to make clear: It is the department’s wish that concerned citizens call 911 when they see armed subjects.

Following Saturday’s incident, he sent an internal memo to all officers:

MPD officers regularly are dispatched to reports of individuals who are armed with firearms. When responding to these incidents, officers should:

• Approach the suspect using the proper tactical response. The individual should be contacted, controlled, and frisked for weapons if appropriate. Officers should separate the suspect from any weapons in his/her possession during the encounter.

• Officers should conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether any violations of state statute or city ordinance have occurred. Some of the relevant offenses to consider include:
• Carrying a Concealed Weapon (•941.23)
• Disorderly Conduct (•947.01)

Sounds like Mn sheriff association not supporting the castle doctrine here. They have since gotten letters from me and will not support their fundraisers.

Kooty, Randy’s story was in Wisconsin….

Yup and our very own Mn Sheriff’s Association stood against the castle doctrine bill that was on governor Dayton’s desk not long ago. Both states are full of anti-liberty individuals.

kooty wrote:

Yup and our very own Mn Sheriff’s Association stood against the castle doctrine bill that was on governor Dayton’s desk not long ago. Both states are full of anti-liberty individuals.

X2

It turns out the guy is a crook. It did not have anything to do with a legally carrying person. According to today’s Star Tribune:
“Authorities have identified and arrested a man who discharged a handgun while checking out at a Fridley Target on Dec. 13.

A tipster identified Seth Allan Millner after police released surveillance video of the incident to the media.

Millner, 28, said he had the gun tucked in his waistband and it went off as he was walking, according to court documents. Millner and a female companion are seen on surveillance footage rushing from the store and driving off in a red car.

Millner, who has prior burglary and gun possession convictions, has been charged with felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an ineligible person.

St. Paul Police arrested Millner on Dec. 17 on suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle, drug possession and possession of a stolen handgun.”

I guess my original assumption wasn’t too far off.

Appears to be another shining member of society. Good news is no one got hurt and dude will likely get some quality time getting a striped tan.

Researching the carry thing for myself and this does back up what some preach. Never just stick a loaded gun in your pants. Use a quality holster to prevent negligent discharge.

patk wrote:

Never just stick a loaded gun in your pants. to prevent negligent discharge.

I must disagree. Oh, you meant firearm? Never mind….

I know 2 people that open carry….and they are 57 and 62 years old…..and if you think you are going to grab their gun you better shoot then quick because they both have 3 or 4 readily available backup plans.

Open carry is not for me but it is legal in Minnesota so just deal with it!

I’m assuming your post is directed at me?
DT

follow up

Hence the “cowboys” moniker…

<blockquoteI’m assuming your post is directed at me?
DT.

No not in the least bit why would you think that?

Update on story from Pioneer Press.

Man who fired gun in Fridley Target store gets 17 months

Man who fired gun in Fridley Target store gets 17 months

By JAIME DELAGE | [email protected]
April 26, 2016 | UPDATED: 21 hours ago

After admitting to police that his gun “just went off” Dec. 13 in a Fridley Target store, a Mora, Minn., man has pleaded guilty to recklessly discharging a firearm in a municipality.

Seth Allan Millner, 28, already is serving a five-year prison sentence on an unrelated conviction after he was found in possession of a stolen car and a stolen gun a few days after the Target incident. Once that case was cleared up, he pleaded guilty April 12 to the reckless discharge and was sentenced to 17 months in prison. He’ll serve the 17 months at the same time as the five years and is eligible for release in three years, according to the Department of Corrections.

Surveillance video shows a man and a woman running from the Target store in Fridley after an accidental gunfire incident Sunday, Dec. 13, 2015. Seth Allan Millner of Mora, Minn., pleaded guilty to reckless discharge of a firearm April 12, 2106, in Anoka County District Court.

Millner and a female companion were the subject of a public alert and some public consternation after Millner’s gun went off in the Target checkout lane and they fled the store. Fridley police issued surveillance photos of the suspects and their car, asking for the public’s help identifying the pair. Police said surveillance video showed the gun tucked into the waistband of the man’s pants. The gun then slipped down into his pants leg and, as he attempted to grab it, the gun went off. No one was injured.

Police in Inver Grove Heights found their car, beat up and abandoned in a wooded area, the day after the Target incident. Three days after that, St. Paul police picked up Millner for driving a stolen vehicle. He also had illegal drugs and a stolen 9-mm handgun, according to the complaint.

Acting on a tip that Millner was responsible for the Target gunshot, Fridley police paid him a visit in the Ramsey County jail.

“All right, it was me, it was me in the (expletive) Target,” he told an investigator, according to the complaint. “I was just walking with it, the stupid (expletive) went off.”
Millner has a November 2014 conviction in Chisago County for possession of a “machine gun or short-barreled shotgun” and is ineligible to possess a firearm.

Karma I guess.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Seth Allan Millner, 28, already is serving a five-year prison sentence on an unrelated conviction after he was found in possession of a stolen car and a stolen gun a few days after the Target incident. Once that case was cleared up, he pleaded guilty April 12 to the reckless discharge and was sentenced to 17 months in prison. He’ll serve the 17 months at the same time as the five years and is eligible for release in three years,

So they’re saying he basically gets off with no additional punishment! And he get out early? This is messed up!

-J.

How about just give him the full 5 AND 17 months after that? So 77 months is what he got and he will be out in 36. Maybe crime does pay.

I want to know which bathroom did he use at Target ?

I did call it though no holster

big_g wrote:

I want to know which bathroom did he use at Target ?

Follow up to Randy’s/DT’s post back in Dec of 2015.

WI’s Attorney General sent out a statement to all law enforcement agency’s a few years back to stop charging disorderly conduct for people legally carrying (open carry) in Wisconsin. This was common practice by LEO’s in WI when there were open carry get togethers to promote the concealed carry law that the Governor would veto.

It’s been pretty quiet over there since Walker signed the cc permits into law.

On another note, there was a negligent discharge at the Hastings Burger King 5 or so years ago in the bathroom. It was thought that someone used a coat hook to hang their weapon on and it discharged when being removed.