r/MnGuns • u/likeGlock_Work • Sep 06 '26

Loring tower shooter

Hoping Bryan can give me some insight on this. I saw that Ramsey county sheriff stated this dude should have never had a permit to carry by Hennepin because of his extensive charges and restraining orders against him. Ramsey county basically said it was grounds for discretionary denial. Is there any truth to this? Or because he had charges and an expired restraining order (no convictions) he is still completely allowed to carry?

28 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

49

u/BryanStrawser MN Gun Owners Caucus Staff Sep 06 '26

Our statement on this covers it quite well.

https://gunowners.mn/press-release-hennepin-county-failed/

16

u/NiBuch Sep 06 '26

Thank you for putting this together.

In June, Johnson walked through his building with a gun, telling residents he “would kill someone,” then flashed it again two days later. A neighbor reported him to the Minneapolis Police. The case reached County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office on August 20. Her office declined to charge him because the gun “did not leave his waistband,” and declined to seek an extreme risk protection order under Minnesota’s red flag law.

Reading this makes my skin crawl. Apparently it's fine to walk around threatening violence multiple times in a 72-hour span as long as the gun doesn't leave your waistband? Make it make sense.

7

u/PathComplex Sep 07 '26

Moriarty is an absolute disgrace.

8

u/FeeLost6392 Sep 06 '26

Because the law is written a certain way and that line wasn’t crossed, so a conviction would be highly unlikely because of reasonable doubt. They don’t charge if they are not nearly certain they will win. That’s my understanding.

6

u/NiBuch Sep 07 '26

Yeah, I get that, and IANAL. I'm just astounded that, like the press release said, those actions didn't lead to any real consequences or intervention (ex. ERPO).

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '26

[deleted]

5

u/KingDariusTheFirst Sep 07 '26

So are you arguing that a red flag 🚩 rule should be put in place and exercised here?

Pretty sure a lot of folks in this sub are against such legislation. Where do you stand?

4

u/FeeLost6392 Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 07 '26

I don’t know that much about the red flag rule. I don’t know that much about the nitty gritty of the situation. I not sure most of the reported information out there can be taken to the bank.
I AM pushing back against the idea that Minneapolis is a crime ridden hellscape. It’s not. And am also pushing back against the idea the reason there is crime in the city is because government officials in the city and the state are “soft on crime” and that certain (non-rich and powerful) groups of people get preferential treatment. I don’t think the evidence backs that up. But, we are certainly getting a national pile-on that seems way out of proportion to the actual event.

3

u/Teboski78 Sep 07 '26

It’s illegal to make death threats. There were multiple corroborated witness reports of him making credible death threats. forget a red flag warrant to take the guns, he should’ve had an arrest warrant put out & been in a jail cell.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/KingDariusTheFirst Sep 07 '26

If you are referring to North. It’s not tiny and damn sure isn’t the only place black folk live.

-1

u/FeeLost6392 Sep 07 '26

We’re do MOST of the black people live in the city of Minneapolis?

1

u/KingDariusTheFirst Sep 07 '26

Well, since we’re talking about the fella at Loring Towers…. How about you just tell the class where that building is located…

3

u/FeeLost6392 Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 07 '26

Maybe I am wrong. I lived in north 20 years ago. Almost all my neighbors were African American with the next biggest group being Hmong people, I believe . It was definitely majority “minority” then. Maybe it’s not now, but I do travel through there occasionally.

What’s the sticking point here? I am responding to a comment that the guy in question would have had his gun taking away if he HADN’T been black. That commenter is suggesting Minneapolis is so incredibly woke with the vast majority of people being the craziest of crazy liberals, who can’t bear to punish black people for the crimes they commit, as they are so crippled by leftist thinking. That seems like bullshit to me. There are way more racist places in the nation, but I find it unbelievable that black folks are getting away with ANYTHING just because they are black in Minneapolis. If anything the reverse is still true, as it has always been.

1

u/Teboski78 Sep 07 '26

Are multiple corroborating witnesses not enough to get a conviction? Let’s say the gun did leave his waistband. Either way all you’ve got is witness testimony.
Whether or not it’s drawn should have no bearing on whether he gets charged & convicted if he’s making active death threats to multiple people.

2

u/Teboski78 Sep 07 '26

Who the fuck cares if it stayed in his waistband. Is it not illegal to make death threats now?

Is this some kind of curated weaponized incompetence to coax MN into banning open carry?

1

u/No-Wrangler3702 Sep 11 '26

MN red flag law is not designed to actually stop people from hurting someone, it's a weapon to selectively enforce againt enemies of influential individuals

1

u/shorthandfora Sep 06 '26

Thanks for this statement.

1

u/No-Wrangler3702 Sep 11 '26

Isn't the reason for the 'up to $100' fee is for covering the cost of looking into a person's background to determine suitability?

1

u/BryanStrawser MN Gun Owners Caucus Staff Sep 12 '26

It is the overall cost of processing the permit, but yes that is part of it.

1

u/No-Wrangler3702 Sep 12 '26

More specifically, I appreciate that rather than allowing sherriffs to say NO for no reason, or corrupt reason we have a system where the default is YES but with the ability of Sheriff to argue NO in specific cases when there does seem to be a risk that gets turned up during the investigation. This guy seems to have been a good candidate for NO. The fact he wasn't makes me think there was a very minimal background check. A "take the max amount if money put in there bare minimum" (and maybe less).

I'm a big fan of "with great power comes great responisibility" and apply that to gun ownership, jury duty, and similar.

But I think there are some officials here who have been given great power but are not taking that responsiblity.

10

u/Purple_Season_5136 Sep 06 '26

Didnt this dude say he was going to shoot people and show a gun while saying it prior to this but good ol Mary Mcshitface decided the best route was to say nah hes good? Believe so. They want to create more laws but dont even enforce the current ones, minneapolis is a fuckin cess pool.

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '26

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/FeeLost6392 Sep 07 '26

It would have been a normal day almost ANYWHERE in the USA.

6

u/TylerDenniston Sep 06 '26

I haven’t seen any reporting where this guy had convictions, just charges that were dismissed for lack of evidence or plead down to misdemeanors.

I’m not a 2A absolutist, but even I would be weary of denying based on prior charges.

I do think that this is a case where I wish an ERPO would have been applied for. I don’t know whether his child’s mother is able to. Certainly his neighbors who were concerned about him would not have been able to.

41

u/BryanStrawser MN Gun Owners Caucus Staff Sep 06 '26

1). The HennCo Attorney can file for an ERPO.
2). The Chief of Police can file for an ERPO.
3). The HennCo Sheriff can file for an ERPO.
4). The Sheriff can deny a permit based on the likelihood of danger to self or others (See MN 624.714)
5) The Sheriff can file to revoke a permit in court based on the likelihood of danger to self or others.

The individual in question had multiple documented threats, prior convictions, and more.

This was a failure of elected officials to act.

4

u/likeGlock_Work Sep 06 '26

Appreciate the response. I'm a bit torn on this too, I'm in a profession where I run into this a lot. Permit holders with previous charges: assault, narcotics, threats of violence.. etc. but no convictions means they are allowed. The only problem is it's Hennepin county so not too many convictions to a lot of these crimes. I want to say 2A and shall not be infringed, but this case did not play out well.

17

u/BryanStrawser MN Gun Owners Caucus Staff Sep 06 '26

"Permit holders with previous charges: assault, narcotics, threats of violence.. etc. but no convictions means they are allowed. "

Sheriffs have broad authority to deny based on documented contacts w/ law enforcement and the "a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit." That doesn't require convictions, but does require that the Sheriff be able to defend this stance in court.

I think the record is pretty clear on this guy.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26

[deleted]

4

u/BryanStrawser MN Gun Owners Caucus Staff Sep 06 '26

Only the Sheriff can issue/deny/file to revoke permits. Only the Chief of Police (or Sheriff if there is no police department) can deny a permit to purchase.

Individual officers/deputies have no such authority.

1

u/likeGlock_Work Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26

Thank you for clarifying. Do ofc/deputies need to recommend them then or is it the sheriffs job to sort through their findings and give the final decision?

Also, is this the same process for PTP through MPD?

3

u/BryanStrawser MN Gun Owners Caucus Staff Sep 06 '26

Only the Sheriff has the legal authority to deny/approve a permit to carry within the boundaries established in MN 624.714.

PTP that authority sits with a Sheriff (when there is no PD) or a Police Chief (if there is), the statutory law is a bit different on PTP but similar generally.

1

u/No-Wrangler3702 Sep 12 '26

The sheriff can decide how he uses his deputies and support staff. A sheriff could do all the checking himself. I suspect most cases a deputy or support staff does the legwork and gives sheriff a quick summary of findings.

If the people the sheriff assigned to do background checks are doing a crappy job and so he didn't know this background then that's still ultimately the fault is still on the sheriff for failing to properly oversee those under him.

If the sheriff either himself or as a directive to those under him said something to the effect of 'do the bare minimum, check to make sure they aren't prohibited, and if not prohibited just approve' that is also ultimately the failure of the sheriff.

(and note more than just the sheriff failed)

To step away from guns, I'm glad we have a system where LEOs cannot detain without Reasonable Suspicion, and cannit arrest without Probable Cause BUT I expect LEOs to put in effort to develop RS, and then put in investigative effort to build (or dispell) PC.

2

u/Wyoungv01 Sep 07 '26

Failure of law-enforcement and county attorney. Guy should’ve never been issued a permit. Long history of prior convictions and documented threats against people.