Public Place in Gun Laws

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

What does a “public place” mean in firearm possession laws in Minnesota?

Several Minnesota laws may apply when a person is in possession of a gun in a “public place.” So the 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 reasonable notice before punishment. And the legislature can amend the statutes at will.

However, the Minnesota Supreme Court seems reluctant to apply the rule of lenity in the interpretation of an ambiguous statute:

“Although the rule of lenity directs courts to ‘favor a more lenient interpretation of a criminal statute,’ we recently clarified that the rule of lenity is a canon of ‘last resort’ that applies ‘only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.’ State v. Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432, 440 (Minn. 2017)”

State v. Serbus, 957 NW2d 84 (Minn. Supreme Court 2021)

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 NW2d 84 (Minn. Supreme Court 2021); State v. Bee, 5 NW3d 713 (Minn. Court of Appeals 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 NW2d 10 (Minn. Court of Appeals 1986).

But later, the Court in State v. Theng Yang, 814 NW2d 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?

Definitions “For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them. …
(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.”

Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, Subd. 1.

Public Place Could Be Different in Different Statutes

But Minn. Stat. § 624.7181 is a statute concerning carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in public. And in case interpreting the Carry Under the Influence statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court said that the definition of carry in a public place could be different in each statute mentioning the terms.

“the parties briefly discuss the relationship between Minn. Stat. §§ 624.714 (the permit-to-carry statute) and 624.7142 (the carrying-while-impaired statute). Section 624.714 incorporates a definition of public place from section 624.7181, which includes ‘private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public.’ Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 1(c) (2020); see Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1a (incorporating the definition for public place in section 624.7181, subdivision 1(c)). …
we have previously held, sections 624.714 and 624.7142 regulate ‘significantly different categories of people and conduct’ and therefore ‘do not sufficiently speak to the same subject matter.’ State v. Prigge, 907 N.W.2d 635, 640 (Minn. 2018) (declining to rely on section 624.714 under the whole-statute canon when interpreting the phrase “on or about” one’s person or clothes for the purpose of section 624.7142). Specifically, section 624.714 applies to pistol owners who do not have a permit to carry and applies whether or not they are impaired. See id. But section 624.7142 applies only to impaired pistol owners and applies whether or not they have a permit. Id. Accordingly, we are not guided by the definition of public place in section 624.714. …
our holding today is limited to the meaning of public place for the purpose of section 624.7142 and does not affect the meaning of public place in other statutes.”

State v. Serbus, 957 NW 2d 84 (Minn. Supreme Court 2021)

Minnesota Statutes section 624.7142, subdivision 1(4), prohibits a person who is under the influence of alcohol from carrying a pistol in a public place.

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, 17 NW3d 150 (Minn. Supreme Court 2025).

Ambiguous: The Bee court noted that the definition of “public place” under Section 624.7142 criminalizing carrying a pistol in a public place under the influence, had no statutory definition. So the definition of “public place” under that statute was ambiguous since “place” may be used in a geographical or spatial sense. That court concluded that, under post-ambiguity canons of statutory construction, the interior of a motor vehicle on a public roadway was a “public place” under that statute.

Unambiguous: But the different statute in the Bee case, section 624.7181, carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in public, specifically, clearly defines “public place” under subdivision 1(c). So, the Bee court held that the definition of “public place” under section 624.7181 is unambiguous as it relates to the interior of a motor vehicle on a public roadway.

The court says that the relevant “place” is the public roadway on which Bee was traveling rather than his personal vehicle.

“Second, we look to the definition of ‘public place’ itself. Subdivision 1(c) lists specific locations that are not public places even if they might otherwise fall under the statute. This includes a person’s house, place of business, and land, as well as gun shops and land where an individual is present for the purposes of hunting or other lawful activity involving firearms. Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 1(c). All the places listed as exempt from the statute are immovable structures or lands. 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.

State v. Bee, 17 NW3d 150 (Minn. Supreme Court 2025)

So, even though the Minnesota Supreme Court has made clear that “public place” could mean different things under the two statutes discussed above (carry rifle shotgun BB gun in public and carry firearm under influence), they came to the same conclusion about whether carrying in a private motor vehicle on a public roadway is a “public place.” It is.

But, the discussion alerts us to scrutinize “public place” and every other word and term used in laws criminalizing people for exercising their rights to firearms and other guns.

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. But the legislature could easily pass an amendment that private parts of private cars are not a “public place” for purposes of gun 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 of their legislators.

Of course, in the meantime, we still have jury trials.

FAQ on the Bee case: The Bee 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 in that case. 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.

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.

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.

And knowing, criminal “possession” (of some contraband) is a broader set of circumstances than “carrying on or about one’s person.”

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 “crimes” 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 (On or About Person) Under the Influence or over 0.04

Negligent Storage of Firearm + Child Access

Criminal Evidence Law | Suppression

Court Process Guide | Criminal Procedure