Minnesota Crimes of Violence & Civil Rights

Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

What are Felony “Crimes of Violence?”

The Minnesota Felony “Crimes of Violence” statute triggers a presumptive lifetime loss of civil rights for convictions fitting its definition, both:

1. Felony, and;
2. Crimes specifically listed in the current version of Minnesota Statutes § 624.712, subd. 5.

Includes Non-violent Crimes: Counterintuitively, Minnesota’s felony “crimes of violence” list includes NON-VIOLENT crimes. Minnesota Statutes § 624.712, subdivision 5 is the statutory definition. And, this statute is about civil rights and guns. It presumptively strips civil rights for life, if convicted of a listed crime.

But nineteen other Minnesota statutes reference or incorporate it in 203 instances. Clearly, its impact is wide, and deep. And these 203 statutory references to “Minnesota crimes of violence” cover a range of topics:

• Driving Records
• Pardons, Restoration Of Civil Rights
• Human Services Background Studies
• Records & Effect Of Juvenile Court
• Testimony Of Witnesses
• Property Forfeiture
• Expungement
• Certain Persons Not To Possess Firearms

Moreover, this statute defining “Minnesota felony crimes of violence” can send a person to prison for simple possession. And, under this statute the most common “crimes of violence” are factually non-violent crimes.

“Crimes of Violence” lists Non-violent crimes

So consider these examples of non-violent crimes included in the definition of “Minnesota Crimes of Violence” in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5. Marijuana possession felonies: More than two pounds of marijuana is a felony to possess. And over 160 grams of concentrate is a felony to possess. See: Weight Thresholds for Marijuana Criminal Prosecutions in Minnesota.

But, since Minnesota statutes define “crimes of violence” to include non-violent crimes, we ask. Is this law Constitutional? Is this law fair or just? Or, will a jury refuse to enforce a law that attempts to define words opposite to their common meaning?

So far, few courts have chosen to reign in this legislative abuse. But, any jury can refuse to accept an unjust law. And the people of Minnesota can ask the legislature to repair this injustice; by removing non-violent crimes from the Minnesota “crimes of violence” list.

If we want to strip a person with a violent crime conviction, of citizenship rights for life; why are non-violent crimes on this list? But the law defies its own internal logic. We should reform this law, to make it less unfair. But until then, we can refuse to enforce an unjust law. And that is a cornerstone reason for the jury trial, and the jury’s power.

Minnesota Felony “Crimes of Violence” statute

“‘Crime of violence’ means: felony convictions of the following offenses:
sections 609.185 (murder in the first degree); 609.19 (murder in the second degree); 609.195 (murder in the third degree); 609.20 (manslaughter in the first degree); 609.205 (manslaughter in the second degree); 609.215 (aiding suicide and aiding attempted suicide);
609.221 (assault in the first degree); 609.222 (assault in the second degree); 609.223 (assault in the third degree); 609.2231 (assault in the fourth degree); 609.224 (assault in the fifth degree); 609.2242 (domestic assault); 609.2247 (domestic assault by strangulation);
609.229 (crimes committed for the benefit of a gang); 609.235 (use of drugs to injure or facilitate crime); 609.24 (simple robbery); 609.245 (aggravated robbery); 609.247 (carjacking); 609.25 (kidnapping); 609.255 (false imprisonment);
609.322 (solicitation, inducement, and promotion of prostitution; sex trafficking);
609.342 (criminal sexual conduct in the first degree); 609.343 (criminal sexual conduct in the second degree); 609.344 (criminal sexual conduct in the third degree); 609.345 (criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree);
609.377 (malicious punishment of a child); 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child); 609.486 (commission of crime while wearing or possessing a bullet-resistant vest);
609.52 (involving theft of a firearm and theft involving the theft of a controlled substance, an explosive, or an incendiary device);
609.561 (arson in the first degree); 609.562 (arson in the second degree); 609.582, subdivision 1 or 2 (burglary in the first and second degrees); 609.66, subdivision 1e (drive-by shooting); 609.67 (unlawfully owning, possessing, operating a machine gun or short-barreled shotgun); 609.71 (riot);
609.713 (terroristic threats); 609.749 (harassment); 609.855, subdivision 5 (shooting at a public transit vehicle or facility); and
chapter 152 (drugs, controlled substances); and an attempt to commit any of these offenses.”

Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5 (2025)

FAQ: “What if crime is no longer on ‘crimes of violence’ list?”

Does the Minnesota “Crimes of Violence” list at the time of the conviction control? Or is the current version of the Minnesota felony “Crimes of Violence” statutes that controls? The current version controls.

That question was answered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in a case involving a carry permit denial. The applicant had been adjudicated delinquent for theft of a motor vehicle in 1998. The court held he was eligible to possess a firearm because the Legislature in 2014 removed that offense from the definition of “crime of violence” in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5. Tapia v. Leslie, 950 NW2d 59 (Minn. Supreme Court 2020).

And one proposed change would remove drug convictions from the Minnesota felony “Crimes of Violence” statute. That change would both dramatically reduce Minnesota’s prison population, and restore a large number of people with old convictions to full citizenship rights. Minnesota’s statute stripping civil rights to firearms for life, Minnesota Statutes § 624.712, subdivision 5, lists felony drug crimes as “violent,” to justify mass incarceration. But other Minnesota statutes defining “violent crime” do not include drug crimes as violent crimes. See for example, Minnesota Statutes § 611A.036, subdivision 7. More on this proposed reform:

Removing Drugs from the Minnesota “Crimes of Violence” Law.

FAQ: What if the original conviction was not a felony?

The statute’s stripping of civil rights for life, by its own terms, only applies to (1) felony convictions for (2) the many crimes listed in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5. For example a drug crime that is not a felony would not trigger the loss of citizenship rights: Less Than Quarter Gram Possession Gross Misdemeanor.

FAQ: What if my felony conviction was later “deemed a misdemeanor”?

If a Minnesota court convicts a person of a felony and “stays the imposition of sentence,” Minnesota Statutes § 609.13, Subd. 1 (2) says that if the person successfully completes the period of the stay without violating a condition, and a felony level sentence is never imposed, then after discharge from that sentence (from probation), the conviction shall after that be “deemed to be for a misdemeanor.”

But the lifetime loss of full citizenship applies, even after a felony is “deemed a misdemeanor” after a Stay of Imposition under 609.13, Subd. 1 (2), because the person was “convicted” of a felony for a period of time, before later being “deemed a misdemeanor.” See, State v. Anderson, 733 NW2d 128 (Minn. Supreme Court 2007). For discussion of what is a stay of imposition, see:

What is a felony in Minnesota?

FAQ: What if a felony charge, but a non-felony sentence?

Though several appellate cases have weighed in on the “stay of Imposition” issue above, none have yet addressed the question of whether a person charged with a felony crime listed in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5, but only convicted of a non-felony level crime is stripped of civil rights for life.

But in my view the law is clear. Under Minnesota law the level of conviction, at the moment of conviction – felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor – is determined by the sentence imposed, at the time it is imposed.

(Note that a non-felony conviction cannot, by definition, be felony crime of violence even if the offense is listed.)

A felony charge is for a crime potentially punishable by a year or more of prison. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, Subd. 2. A criminal charge is an unproven claim. A maximum punishment for a charge is a potential future event, not a past event.

But after a plea agreement or a “straight plea” to a judge, sometimes the judge will sentence a person who offers a guilty plea to a felony charge, to a gross misdemeanor sentence. And when that happens, that is a Gross Misdemeanor level conviction, not a felony conviction. So though the moment a judge “adjudicates” a defendant guilty (approves the factual basis offered as well as affirming that due process) the person is “convicted,” the level of that conviction is determined by the sentence the judge “imposes” (regardless of whether the sentence imposed is “executed”). See:

“Notwithstanding a conviction is for a felony:
(1) the conviction is deemed to be for a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor if the sentence imposed is within the limits provided by law for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.13, Subd. 1 (1) CONVICTIONS OF FELONY OR GROSS MISDEMEANOR (2025)

The key here is that the defendant who pleads guilty to a felony charge, to be sentenced as a gross misdemeanor, was never convicted of a felony even for one minute, since the original sentence was a non-felony sentence.

At least that is what the law appeared to be until the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a trial court judge who applied the law, as described above. In Hippe vs. Dakota County Sheriff Leko, A25-1652 (Minn. Court of Appeals 6/1/26), the court decided that the citizen was convicted of a felony “crime of violence” when adjudicated guilty of a criminal charge, even though the sentencing judge had never imposed a felony sentence. Perhaps the Respondent in that case will appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which may correct their error. For now, heads up.

As a result, a person with a pending felony charge should think twice about making a plea agreement calling for a plea to a felony charge but a gross misdemeanor sentence. On the other hand, for a person who has already had this happen years ago, this analysis may be crucial.

The citizen in Hippe vs. Dakota County Sheriff Leko, A25-1652 (Minn. Court of Appeals 6/1/26), will petition the Minnesota Supreme Court for further appellate review. And the Minnesota Supreme Court should reverse it, and reinstate the trial court’s decision. Why?

The time between adjudication and sentencing

The moment the judge’s “adjudication” is perfected is an important point with big implications. About 99% of the time, judges do not “accept” guilty pleas (usually the product of a plea agreement) until sentencing. When a judge accepts a guilty plea, that is the moment of adjudication. Adjudication is a judge saying “I have personal knowledge that the defendant’s legal rights have been afforded or waived, and a factual basis exists that he or she is guilty of the crime.” When that is based on a guilty plea, as in over 90% of convictions, that guilty plea can be withdrawn by the defendant based on Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Plea Withdrawal:

Subd. 1. To Correct Manifest Injustice. At any time the court must allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea upon a timely motion and proof to the satisfaction of the court that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Such a motion is not barred solely because it is made after sentencing. If a defendant is allowed to withdraw a plea after sentencing, the court must set aside the judgment and the plea.
Subd. 2. Before Sentence. In its discretion the court may allow the defendant to withdraw a plea at any time before sentence if it is fair and just to do so. The court must give due consideration to the reasons advanced by the defendant in support of the motion and any prejudice the granting of the motion would cause the prosecution by reason of actions taken in reliance upon the defendant’s plea.

Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Plea Withdrawal

That rule on plea withdrawal means that, for example, if a judge refuses to honor a plea agreement, the defendant can move to withdraw their guilty plea and demand a trial, and that motion should be granted since “it is fair and just to do so,” before sentence under subdivision 2. Compare that to the situation after sentencing when the defendant would have a to show a “that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice,” under subdivision 1, which is a higher and more difficult burden.

What about a trial verdict (by a jury or judge)? The defendant typically files a motion for a judgment of acquittal after a verdict, under Rule 26.03, Subd. 18 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule allows a defendant to move to set aside a guilty verdict and enter an acquittal if the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. And typically judges rule on those motions at the time of sentencing.

As a result, any adjudication by a trial court judge before sentencing is at best provisional, and not perfected until the moment of sentencing.

The time between adjudication and sentencing is brief. Usually it is a matter of seconds or minutes, essentially simultaneous with sentencing. In other cases, the time period is still brief — a matter of weeks. Therefore, if the defendant is provisionally adjudicated guilty of a felony charge and later sentenced to a gross misdemeanor sentence, that adjudication is not perfected under Rule 15.05 until the moment of sentencing.

Implications of Minnesota “Crimes of Violence” statute

So if you face any of the felony charges on the statute’s list; know that a conviction results in a default lifetime loss of civil rights to firearms. And though some might eventually get restoration; most never will.

Considering that simple possession of a firearm triggers mandatory prison for a prohibited person, caution makes sense. So people who lost their civil rights for a non-violent crime; later serve prison time for another non-violent crime, simple possession. But outcomes like that – imprisoning non-violent criminals for possession alone – violate the both the apparent purpose of the law and basic fairness.

But, for now, the last defense may be a good criminal defense lawyer. So, educate yourself about the “Minnesota Felony Crimes of Violence” statute, before it’s too late. And bring some lawyering power to bear.

Federal Rights and Cases

In recent years, federal courts have struck down laws stripping people of their rights to firearms based on certain criminal convictions, under federal felon-in-possession law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), including for factually non-violent crimes, as violating the Second Amendment under a Bruen analysis.

Recently, in Delligatti v. United States, 604 US 423 (2025), the United States Supreme Court decided a challenge to the definition of “crime of violence” in a federal statute, 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(3)(A). The Supreme Court held that a “crime of violence” included a felony that involves the “use of physical force” against another person meaning the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death.

And in United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. _ (2026), the United States Supreme Court ruled that categorically disarming individuals based solely on their status as regular drug users (such as marijuana users) violates the Second Amendment. Historical restrictions on “habitual drunkards” did not provide a sufficient constitutional analogue to disarm average American drug users who are not shown to be incapacitated or dangerous.

Were that standard applied to Minnesota’s “Crime of Violence” statute, many of the listed crimes don’t fit the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of “crimes of Violence,” for example possession crimes, theft, controlled substance crimes like marijuana, etc.

Related pages

Gun charges attorney

Prohibited Person in Possession of a Firearm

Carrying Under the Influence

What is Firearm Possession?

Carry Without Permit

About Attorney Thomas Gallagher

Thomas Gallagher is a Minnesota criminal defense attorney with over 38 years experience helping people. And this includes charges of Minnesota Felony “Crimes of Violence.” So he developed expertise in gun laws, to help protect rights. And now he teaches gun law CLE classes to other lawyers.

Attorney Thomas Gallagher handles every kind of gun charge case. And he helps people with other criminal charges with gun enhancements.

More

Felony doesn’t always impair Minnesota gun rights

Restoring Gun Rights After a Domestic Misdemeanor

BB gun in Minnesota Criminal Laws

Civil Rights, Guns & Marijuana: Why Minnesota Expungement is Broken

Crimes Against Persons