Reckless Discharge of Firearm

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

In some circumstances discharge of a firearm can be a crime. So let’s cover the Minnesota statutes criminalizing firearm discharge in specific situations, penalties and defenses.

While government most frequently prosecutes reckless discharge within a municipality, Minnesota has other, similar crimes. And while it’s possible for a Minnesota Carry Permit holder to have an unintentional discharge of firearm issue in a public place, most of these cases arise in the person’s home, sometimes with alcohol in the background.

Reckless Discharge of a Firearm Within a Municipality

Minnesota Statutes § 609.66, Subd. 1a:

“Felony crimes; reckless discharge. (a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b): …
(2) intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another; or
(3) recklessly discharges a firearm within a municipality.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.66, Subd. 1a (2025)

The penalty for reckless discharge of firearm is up to two years imprisonment, $5,000 fine, or both. But if in a “public housing zone,” a “school zone,” or a “park zone,” then up to five years. If convicted, the maximum sentence is rare. See:

Sentencing Hearing Guide.

What does “Reckless” mean?

“A person acts ‘recklessly’ when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

A person acts ‘negligently’ when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

The difference between the terms ‘recklessly’ and ‘negligently,’ as thus defined, is one of kind rather than of degree. Each actor creates a risk of harm. The reckless actor is aware of the risk and disregards it; the negligent actor is not aware of the risk but should have been aware of it.”

State v. Frost, 342 NW2d 317 (Minn. Supreme Court 1983)

Every crime must have an “intent element” which the government must prove, before its target can be found guilty. Recklessness is a level of intent. And it is one that can be enough for criminal liability. But it is more than simple negligence, or even gross negligence.

The statute requires proof of an objective element and a subjective element, the objective element being gross negligence and the subjective element being recklessness in the form of an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct. See, State v. Frost, id.

Misdemeanor Reckless Handling or Pointing

When we consider discharge of firearm crimes, people will compare to safe gun handling practices. The most fundamental rules of gun safety:

1. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you
   don’t want to destroy.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot.
3. Avoid alcohol when handling a gun; avoid handling a gun after alcohol.

See:

Carrying Under the Influence | Charges & Defense.

Following these self-disciplines, and making them an ingrained habit, prevents criminal charges of reckless handling or intentional pointing.

Minnesota Statutes § 609.66, Subd. 1:

“Misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):
1) recklessly handles or uses a gun or other dangerous weapon or explosive so as to endanger the safety of another; or
(2) intentionally points a gun of any kind, capable of injuring or killing a human being and whether loaded or unloaded, at or toward another; …”

Minn. Stat. § 609.66, Subd. 1 (2025)

A violation of the above is a misdemeanor, with up to 90 days jail possible, or a gross misdemeanor with up to 364 days if in a “public housing zone,” a “school zone,” or a “park zone.”

Note the first “reckless handling” specifies a reckless level of criminal intent. But the second, “intentional pointing” requires more than that, and certainly much more than gross negligence. More on the meaning of “negligence” vs. “reckless:”

Negligent Storage of Firearm + Child Access

Defenses

What common defenses mean that the person targeted by the government is not-guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm or other firearm discharge crime?

Identity

Every criminal statute contains “elements” of the crime. And the government must prove each and every element, before a person can be “guilty.” For example, if a crime was committed by a person, but the government accuses the wrong person, who did not do it, then one element may be missing. And only one missing element means the accused is not-guilty.

All crimes include an “identity” element. But in some cases, evidence of identity is lacking. In these reckless firearm discharge cases, usuallythe evidence of identity is solely based upon a statement by the accused to police or another person.

Fifth Amendment: Remember, you don’t need to talk to police or anyone else. Nor do you need to answer any questions. Instead, use your Sixth Amendment right and call a lawyer first.

For those that did make a statement to police, we may be able to ask a judge to suppress involuntary statements, as well as statements police get in violation of Miranda. But not talking to police or others in the first place, is the best situation.

Intent Defenses

In every criminal case, the government must have evidence of criminal intent. Criminal laws specifies differing levels of criminal intent requirements. But for reckless discharges of a firearm and similar cases, the most important are recklessness and general intent.

Evidence of intent may be objective or subjective. Objective evidence of intent is similar to the reasonable person standard. Subjective intent is what the person intended in their own mind. The best evidence of subjective intent may be the person’s statement near the time of the event, or testimony at trial. See:

The “Reasonable Person”.

We must remember that a simple accident is simple negligence, and not recklessness. And the government needs evidence of more than mere accident or negligence. It must have evidence of recklessness, to support a reckless discharge Complaint.

Self-Defense vs. discharge of firearm

Self-defense, and Defense of Another are defenses that presume an intentional act. The defender intentionally used force, or discharged a firearm. If it was self-defense, then it was no accident. But it was legally justified as a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another. See my:

Brandishing, Assault & Self-Defense: Legal Readiness.

I have several useful articles here about lawful self-defense and defense of another on this site:

Self-Defense Laws in Minnesota

Escalation, Dominance, Deception in Self-Defense

Blog series on Self-Defense

And self-defense can be a defense to a reckless discharge of firearm and similar criminal charges.

FAQ: “Can a Warning Shot be lawful self-defense?”

Yes, a warning shot can be lawful self-defense. But as always with self-defense, everything depends upon what was reasonable in the circumstances. And people tend towards scepticism of other people’s self-defense claims. Add to that the prevailing view that firing a warning shot is a bad idea from a tactical perspective; and we can say that firing a warning shot should generally be avoided.

But what if it already happened? Someone charged with a crime, like reckless discharge of a firearm within a municipality, can raise the defense of self-defense where the facts support it.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that:

“without the evidence that it was a violation of ‘standards’ to fire a warning shot, the jury might well have been inclined to view the firing of a warning shot as evidence of a reasonable, gradually increasing use of force by defendant to meet a perceived threat to his own safety.”

State v. Post, 512 NW2d 99 (Minn. Supreme Court 1994)

So, the firing of a warning shot could be evidence of a reasonable, gradually increasing use of force by defendant to meet a perceived threat to his own safety. Along the continuum of force, use of a warning shot could conceivably be a reasonable, reduced level of force necessary in response to reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. After all, the self-defender’s goal generally is to stop the threat. Whether a “warning shot” actually hit someone would be a key fact, since even pointing a firearm is an escalation of force compared to not pointing. See my article:

Disparity of Force & Self-Defense.

Question? Call Attorney Thomas Gallagher, 612-333-1500

You are welcome to call Attorney Thomas Gallagher with questions.

More: discharge of firearm

Gun Charges Defense Lawyer

Carry Without Permit

What is Firearm Possession?

BB gun in Minnesota Criminal Laws

Dangerous Weapon Charges & Defenses

Careless Driving | Reckless Driving