Removing Drugs from Minnesota “Crimes of Violence” Law

In April, 2024 a Bill was introduced in the Minnesota Senate removing drugs crimes from Minnesota’s felony “Crime of Violence list, that triggers a lifetime loss of civil rights to firearm possession. The Bill is SF 5280. It would amend Minnesota Statutes § 624.712, subdivision 5, to simply delete “and chapter 152 (drugs, controlled substances)” from the list of felony crimes stripping civil rights from people for life.

Is this good public policy? Yes. Reasons follow.

Honesty & Integrity: Drug Crimes Are Non-Violent

No victim, no crime:

“‘Victim’ means a natural person who incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime … The term ‘victim’ does not include the person charged with or alleged to have committed the crime.”

Minn. Stat. § 611A.01 (b)

But a violent crime involves use of force or threat of force, for example murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, common law rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Of course, drug possession or sale crimes do not require any element or evidence of the use of force or threat of force. So drug crimes are non-violent, in addition to being victimless crimes. Removing drugs from this statute would be more honest and fair to the people.

Avoid Lengthy Prison for Non-violent Crimes

“Ineligible felon in possession of firearm/ammunition” accounted for 79.6 percent of all weapon offenses in 2022, according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission 2024 report.

And that crime carries a mandatory minimum prison commitment of at least three years, in Minnesota.

Since felony drug offenses made up the second largest percentage of cases (after person offenses) at 27 percent, in Minnesota, removing drugs crimes from the Minnesota Statutes §624.712, subdivision 5, “Crimes of Violence” list, would prevent a large number of people from being imprisoned for simple possession of a firearm.

Effect of Removing Non-violent Crimes

In Minnesota, the general rule for civil rights to firearms after a felony conviction is restoration upon discharge from the court’s sentence. That means the day after probation or supervised release expires, the state again recognizes the persons civil rights, under Minnesota law.

But the a big exception to that general rule is for convictions of crime on the Minnesota Statutes § 624.712, subdivision 5, “Crimes of Violence” list. Prior to 2003, crimes on that list triggered a ten year ban. In 2003, the state changed it to a lifetime ban. For more on this, see:

Felony doesn’t always impair Minnesota gun rights.

So, after deleting drug crimes from the Minnesota Statutes §624.712, subdivision 5, “Crimes of Violence” list, the general rule would apply. Persons convicted of felony drug crimes would still lose their civil rights to guns, but only until “off-paper,” like other non-violent felonies.

And removing drugs from this statute will dramatically reduce the number of people sent to prison in Minnesota, for simple possession of a firearm.

Disparate impact based on race: People of African-American ethnicity disproportionately face going to prison as a “Prohibited Person in Possession of a Firearm.” And often the reason they are “prohibited” is an old drug conviction, which triggers the lifetime gun ban in Minnesota Statutes §624.712, subdivision 5, felony “Crimes of Violence” because that list includes “and chapter 152 (drugs, controlled substances).” So if you were convicted of a felony drug crime 20 years ago, and have been a model law-abiding citizen ever since, that statute can send you to prison for the “gun crime” of simply possessing an unused firearm in your home for defense of your family.

We don’t need to know why. It’s enough to know that this law is immoral, irrational, and disproportionately impacts people based on race. People may not be racist. But we objectively know that this law has an unfair impact on large numbers of otherwise innocent people, based on race. See:

Prohibited Person in Possession of Firearm.

Gun Possession vs. Criminal Use of a Gun

We can distinguish between unlawful possession vs. the actual use in a crime of a firearm. By use of a gun in a crime, we mean a person was committing a crime (other than possession of a gun); plus they used a gun to help commit that crime.

Compare that to a person was was convicted a drug crime 30 years ago (even possession of two ounces of marijuana), living in a crime-ridden area, who possesses a firearm at home for security. Would convicting that person, and sending them to prison for three years, be an evil act? Who among us would be willing to be complicit in such an act? We should change this law.

About the Author: removing drugs

Attorney Thomas Gallagher is a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer, including gun crimes defense.

He’s advocated for legal reforms of marijuana laws and gun laws for decades.

More: removing drugs

Civil Rights, Guns & Marijuana: Minnesota Expungement Broken

What is Firearm Possession?

Obstruction, Resisting Arrest

Point-of-View and Self-Defense: The Other

Minnesota Crimes of Violence

Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Evidence