Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
What is a “public place” for firearm possession laws in Minnesota? Several Minnesota laws may apply when a person is in possession of a gun in a “public place.” So type of place can make the difference between lawful, unlawful and criminal. Examples includes Carry without a permit, and Carry with 0.04 Alcohol Concentration in a Public Place (including with a Minnesota Carry Permit).
“Public place” is a relative term in the laws. And so what may be a public place for one purpose might not be, for another. For example, the term is important in prostitution and in DWI criminal cases.
Courts apply statutory construction principles to find definitions of important words in criminal statutes. First judges will look at the statute section or chapter to see if the legislature defined the term. Next they compare to other similar statutory definitions if any. And then they look to the common meaning of words.
But in the criminal law context, due process (basic fairness) is an overriding concern. Due process requires that a criminal law give people fair notice of just what conduct is subject to incarceration.
The Rule of Lenity
If the criminal law is ambiguous or unclear, punishment without fair warning would be unfair. So a criminal law could be unconstitutionally vague. Or, the court could apply the Rule of Lenity to interpret the criminal statute most favorably to the defendant. The rule of lenity is an interpretive guideline older than the Constitution and “is perhaps not much less old than [statutory] construction itself.” United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76, 95 (1820); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 343 (2012) (lenity “reflect[s] the spirit of the common law”). It requires that after application of other standard interpretive tools, ambiguity or uncertainty in the scope of criminal statutes must be resolved in favor of defendants. United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019). After all, fairness requires notice before punishment. And the legislature can amend the statutes at will.
Is your Car a “Public Place?”
A person’s motor vehicle is usually possessed by them, and not available to the public. People generally lock the car doors, and have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the space inside their motor vehicles, other than what can be seen through the windows.
So, is a car “public place?” Or is it private property and a private space? After all, many states recognize the right to armed self-defense against violent crimes without a “duty to retreat” when in your car. But the opposing position views the car as unimportant, as if invisible. Under this view, whether a place is public depends upon where the car is located, not whether inside a car.
Being within a car was not a pivotal fact in relation to whether “in a public place.” (Farm field in rural setting vs. driveway in urban area). See, State v. Serbus, 957 NW 2d 84 (Minn. Supreme Court 2021); State v. Bee, A23-1257 (Minnesota Court of Appeals April 15, 2024).
In one case predating the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003, the defendant was outside of his own home inside of a car parked in his private driveway in possession of a pistol. State v. DeLegge, 390 NW 2d 10 (Minn. Court of Appeals 1986).
But later, the Court in State v. Theng Yang, 814 NW 2d 716 (Minn. Court of Appeals 2012), says that the DeLegge court’s definition of “public place” was legislatively overruled by Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003, Minnesota Statutes §§624.714, 624.7181.
The legislature defined “public place” explicitly in the statute (below). But it did not mention motor vehicles at all, either in the inclusive definition or the excluding definition. So, the courts struggle to fill in the gaps. The cases discuss how. But many of us believe they got it wrong. How can the private parts of a private cars possibly be treated as a public space?
Minnesota Statutes §624.7181, Subdivision 1. Definitions … (c) “Public place” means property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public in sufficient numbers to give clear notice of the property’s current dedication to public use but does not include: a person’s dwelling house or premises, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person; a gun show, gun shop, or hunting or target shooting facility; or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms.”
But now, in 2025 The Minnesota Supreme Court held that “the definition of ‘public place’ under Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subdivision 1(c) (2024), includes the interior of a motor vehicle on a public roadway.” State v. Bee, A23-1257 (Minnesota February 19, 2025). The court says “that the “place” in this Statute is “The use of real property in this context implies that the term ‘public place’ generally refers to the geographic rather than spatial location. Cf. Serbus, 957 N.W.2d at 88. That would mean the relevant ‘place’ is the public roadway on which Bee was traveling rather than his personal vehicle.” Also of note, State v. Bee was a case involving a criminal charge for carrying a BB gun in car.
So the Minnesota Supreme Court has spoken on this. But the legislature could easily pass an amendment that private parts of a private cars are not a “public place” for purposes of firearms laws. For example the statute could be amended to add: “Public place …” “does not include: a person’s dwelling house or premises, a person’s motor vehicle, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person …” And the People can make that demand. but does not include: a person’s dwelling house or premises, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person;
Of course, in the meantime, we still have jury trials.
FAQ on the Bee case: This case was about whether “charging probable cause” existed to support the “Carry in Public Without a Permit” charge. Notably, it was not a “probable cause to search” case – an issue not raised. The facts were undisputed. The dispute was about the meaning of the words “public place” in that specific statute (not the common meaning). “Public place” was an element of the crime charged. This case did not address the law of car searches, or change it in any way.
Is a Private Yard a “Public Place?”
Carrying a pistol without a permit in a private yard is not carrying a pistol in a public place under sections 624.714 and 624.7181. State v. Theng Yang, 814 NW 2d 716 (Minn. Court of Appeals 2012). The Minnesota Court of Appeals vacated Yang’s sentence after ruling his arrest unlawful and excluding the produced evidence.
Statute’s Definition of Public Place
“For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them. [ … ]
Minnesota Statutes §624.7181, Subd. 1. Definitions
(c) ‘Public place’ ; means property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public in sufficient numbers to give clear notice of the property’s current dedication to public use but does not include: a person’s dwelling house or premises, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person; a gun show, gun shop, or hunting or target shooting facility; or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms.”
Defenses
When a crime includes “public place” as an element of the definition of that crime, then no crime took place unless in that type of place. So when the prosecutor lacks proof that whatever happened was actually in a public place, the defendant is not-guilty of a crime.
In addition to this defense, all the numerous other defenses to accusations of breaking a criminal law are available.
Question? Call Attorney Thomas Gallagher, 612 333-1500
Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas Gallagher represents people accused of gun crimes. Many of these seem to be technical violations of overly complex gun laws. So increasing understanding of these laws can help guide clients out of danger. He welcomes calls with questions.
More
Minnesota Gun Charges Defense Lawyer
What is Firearm Possession?
Carry Without Permit
Carrying Under the Influence or over 0.04
Negligent Storage of Firearm + Child Access