Minneapolis Gun Rights Lawyer
Hire the top Minneapolis Gun Rights Lawyer. Lynne Torgerson is the expert on gun rights laws in Minnesota and will aggressively represent you in your gun rights case. Serving Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina , St. Louis Park , Minnetonka , and ALL of Minnesota!
In addition to weapons charges, Ms. Torgerson can represent you in various gun rights cases such as: gun rights restoration, carry permit denial, denial of a permit to purchase, gun purchase denial, and other Second Amendment related cases in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and throughout the State of Minnesota.
A petition to restore Second Amendment rights to possess firearms is brought in the courts of the State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson is a gun rights lawyer in Minneapolis MN and is an expert in relation to gun rights. She can represent you in all these matters, in state and federal courts, throughout the State of Minnesota.
Learn more about Ms. Torgerson’s Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer record.
Attorney Lynne Torgerson, Esq., a gun rights lawyer with over 29 years of experience, can represent you in such cases.
Minneapolis Firearms & Weapons Charges Lawyer - Lynne Torgerson, Esq.
Minnesota has various statutes punishing the possession or carrying of a firearm or other weapon. These can be simple possession or carrying of a firearm without the proper permit, or, in conjunction with another offense, such as possession or dealing of drugs, use in connection with an assault, or in a robbery, etc.
Possession of a firearm in connection with another offense will likely make the potential punishment much more serious, such as a mandatory minimum prison time, or, a more lengthy prison sentence.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson , Gun Charges Lawyer, is here to assist you in carrying without a permit case, felon in possession of a firearm, ineligible person in possession of a firearm, carrying while under the influence, gun charges, weapons charges, negligent storage of firearms, presenting a firearm at an airport security check point, pointing a firearm at another, road rage, etc.
A Top Minneapolis Gun Rights Lawyer
Ms. Torgerson, a long-time criminal defense lawyer, also represents people charged with violating the gun laws. These sorts of charges can be extremely serious. For example, if a person has been convicted of a felony, and subsequently is found in possession of a firearm, they can be charged with the very serious offense of felon in possession of a firearm.
This carries the potential sentence of a five (5) years mandatory prison term, and up to 15 years in prison. There are also charges such as carrying a firearm without a permit, which is a gross misdemeanor. The legislature has also recently enacted laws against a person being under the influence of alcohol and carrying a firearm.
Ms. Torgerson can represent you in all these and similar cases, throughout the State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson has been working on cases involving constitutional rights since 1988; that’s about 32 years now! She has experience with these kinds of cases both in the cities, and out state. Ms. Torgerson had represented citizens all the way up to our northern border in International Falls, and all the way south to Freeborn and Olmsted Counties, and many cities and counties in between.
Second Amendment Rights Attorney in Minnesota
Our Second Amendment rights are so important. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized them as a fundamental right. The United States Supreme Court recognized and wrote that our rights to possess firearms existed before their codification in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms enables a citizen, should the need ever arise, to protect self, family, and property, to protect the United States in the event of an attack, and to protect citizens from and deter governmental tyranny.
This has been specifically recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller. How people usually use firearms is in hunting, range shooting, or target practice activities.
Did you know that in the 1600s, by statute, people were required to have a minimum amount of ammunition, and, if they did not, they were fined! This is the context in which the Second Amendment was promulgated.
The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is based on three (3) things. The first is our right of self-defense. For example, self-defense, defense of your family, your property. The second is defense of State, in the sense that if the United States was attacked, we would have men and women already armed and ready to defend our Country (a militia) before the military was dispatched.
This also provides a deterrent to enemies of the United States, in that enemies are less likely to attack the mainland of the United States if everyone is armed and ready to defend our Country. The third is to defend against governmental tyranny: in other words, to defend ourselves against our own Government, in the instance of tyranny. It also helps to deter governmental tyranny.
Isn’t all of that fascinating. So, our rights to keep and bear arms, our Second Amendment rights, are extremely important. Sometimes, this constitutional right may be a defense in your criminal case.
Minneapolis Gun Rights Lawyer
If you find yourself charged in a criminal case, whether federal or local, and you seek representation in Minneapolis or throughout the state of Minnesota, contact Lynne Torgerson today for your free consultation.
Consultation Request
Our Wins
Firearms Charges Attorney Lynne Torgerson successfully obtains stay of adjudication in felon in possession case.
Firearms Charges Lawyer Lynne Torgerson successfully obtains a stay of adjudication in felon in possession case out of the County of Todd, State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with felon in possession of a firearm. He asserted that he believed he was legal to possess given he was so told when he purchased a hunting license. His belief was erroneous. A DNR Officer found him hunting on his land, in possession of a firearm.
The potential penalty is a mandatory minimum of five (5) years in prison, up to 15 years in prison. Fortunately, the State prosecutor agreed to a stay of adjudication, and no jail time. That means Ms. Torgerson’s client is not convicted of any crime. If successful on probation, the charge and case is dismissed, and keeps his record clean of this offense. He would also be eligible for an expungement. Well done Ms. Torgerson. Gun Rights Lawyer in Minneapolis.
Gun charges lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins victory with dismissal of carrying while under the influence case.
Attorney Lynne Torgerson has won, on her client’s behalf, a dismissal of a charge of carrying a firearm, a pistol, under the influence. The case was out of the City of Robbinsdale, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. The City charged her client with being under the influence of a controlled substance and alcohol while carrying a pistol in his driveway.
The case did have an interesting issue of whether a driveway is private or public property. After a number of months, the City dismissed the case in its entirety. Her client states that he can now sleep better. Kudos Ms. Torgerson!
Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins stay of adjudication in carrying without a permit case.
Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with carrying a pistol without a permit, no proof of insurance, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia, out of Dakota County. Ms. Torgerson obtained on her client’s behalf a stay of adjudication on the carrying without a permit charge, with the remaining counts dismissed. Presuming the client successfully completes probation, the carrying without a permit charge will be dismissed. Well done Ms. Torgerson!
Gun Rights Lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Wins Dismissal of Felon in Possession of a Firearm Case.
Lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was notified of a ruling that a motion to dismiss a charge of felon in possession of a firearm case was granted for lack of probable cause.
Because of the finding of a lack of probable cause, the case must be dismissed. The threat of a five (5) year mandatory minimum prison term is also dismissed.
The facts were essentially that because Ms. Torgerson’s client had prior felony convictions, the client was barred from possessing a firearm for life, under state and federal law. The facts included that a fire occurred in the attic where the client was sleeping. Client had some personal property stored in the attic. Other people also had access to the attic.
The home had been inherited by the client’s mother, where client and the mother lived. Years before, the grandparents had lived in the home, and the grandfather was known to own firearms. The Fire Department responded and put out the fire. During the process of putting out the fire, a good number of items were thrown around. After the fire was extinguished, a firearm wrapped in plastic was found in the attic. Client was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
Because the evidence of possession was circumstantial, and because there existed a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with the client’s guilty, after many months of litigation, the case was dismissed for lack of probable cause. Bravo Ms. Torgerson! Gun Rights Lawyer in Minneapolis.
Gun charges lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtains dismissal of negligent storage of firearms case.
Gun charges lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtained dismissal of a case charging negligent storage of firearms. Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with negligent storage of firearms after a grandson injured himself with her client’s firearm. Initially, Ms. Torgerson obtained a stay of adjudication of the case. Thereafter, upon successful completion of probation, the entire case was dismissed. This means her client has no conviction on his record. Well done client and Ms. Torgerson!
Case Law Updates
Criminal charge aggravated if also possess firearm.
In criminal law, weapons and guns come up in numerous different contexts. While one could be charged with a criminal offense for ‘regulation of gun rights’, and, possession of weapons and guns could lead to more dire consequences in the case of crimes such as theft and burglary. A criminal conviction or a civil court order leading to the loss of civil and property rights can also lead to the loss of gun rights.
The Minnesota Supreme Court rules that a BB gun is not a firearm.
In amazing and hugely important holdings, the Minnesota Courts have ruled that BB guns do not constitute a firearm. Consequently, many people convicted of the crime of felon in possession of a firearm (also known as person ineligible to possess a firearm crime), based on possession of a BB gun, will have their convictions vacated. And, if they are in prison, they will be released. This is significant because the crime of felon in possession of a firearm carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five (5) years/sixty (60) months in prison.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in State v. Haywood, (Minn. 2016) and the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in State v. Yang, (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) have held that a bb gun is not a firearm. The reason for the Courts’ holdings is because BB guns use compressed air, rather than gunpowder or other explosive force, as a propellant. A further reason was that the term “firearm” is not defined in either statute, Minn. Stat. section 609.165 nor Minn. Stat. 624.713. This is a substantive change in the law, and, applies retroactively.
Are BB guns are firearms?
This is a significant change in the law. For essentially 40 years, people have been operating under the belief, based upon caselaw, that BB guns are firearms. State v. Haywood breaks with prior case law precedent set in State v. Seifert, (Minn. 1977), wherein the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the term “firearm” should be construed to include guns that use compressed air. This issue has been litigated for years, but the Minnesota Supreme Court never took the case.
If your case fits, Ms. Torgerson, Esq. can help you bring a request for vacation of your conviction, and release from prison. Give her a call, a criminal defense lawyer of excellence: (612) 339-5073.
Constructive possession.
Although unpublished, this is a very important case for felon in possession of firearms cases involving a constructive possession issue.
There are two (2) kinds of possession. One is actual possession, and the other, much more grey, is constructive possession. Actual possession is where a person actually possesses a firearm, holds it, carries it in one’s holster, and the like. The other is constructive possession, and the legal definition is if the person can exercise dominion or control over the firearm.
If so, then a jury could find one guilty of possessing a firearm. This becomes important if a person is convicted of a felony, and, say, for example, one’s spouse or girlfriend has a firearm in the house, or the closet, or in the vehicle. Another example may be if the felon goes hunting with other people who possess firearms. The question arises: does the felon constructively possess the firearm, and can he/she be charged with felon in possession of a firearm? This is a very grey area, and the question would be left up to a jury.
So, recently, in 2017, in an unpublished decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, a defendant appeals from his conviction for possessing a firearm. He argued that (1) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the element of constructive possession, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he constructively possessed the firearm.
Exercising Dominion and Control
Defendant argued that the instruction was in error because the trial court’s instruction eliminated the act of exercising dominion and control and reduced constructive possession to merely a mental state. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that constructive possession does not require an act of exercising dominion and control; it required evidence that the defendant was consciously exercising dominion and control. Affirmed. State v. Owens, A16-0559, Hennepin County.
Commentary: this does not appear to be a very good case, nor very instructive. There are not enough facts provided to guide behavior. It does illustrate however that people ineligible to possess firearms must be very cautious to not be in constructive possession of a firearm. Further, it is worth pointing out, if you have violated these provisions, be certain to invoke your rights to remain silent.
Constructive possession of a firearm jury instruction upheld as sufficient.
In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, defendant argued that the trial court’s jury instructions materially misstated the law regarding constructive possession. Defendant did not object to the jury instruction at rial. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the instruction requiring the jury to find that defendant “knowingly had both the power and the intention to exercise authority and control” over the handgun did not constitute a material misstatement of the law. Affirmed.
State v. Hoffman, A18-1386, Hennepin County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Circumstantial evidence of constructive possession of a firearm by ineligible person sufficient.
A jury found defendant guilty of five (5) offenses based on evidence that he unlawfully possessed a firearm, ammunition, and a controlled substance. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the only reasonable inference in light of the circumstances proved was that defendant was consciously exercising dominion and control over a handgun found wrapped in a motel towel in his motel room. However, defendant was unlawfully sentenced on multiple convictions because two of his convictions were based on the same behavioral incident. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
State v. Dow, A18-1856, Mower County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Defendant in felon in possession of a firearm case receives aggravated sentence.
Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Upon consideration of the statutory sentencing factors, the trial court concluded that aggravating factors, including discharging a firearm in the vicinity of his wife and pointing it in the direction of a bystander, outweighed the mitigating factors. The District Court therefore varied upward for defendant’s sentencing.
Where the District Court thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing an upward variance to defendant’s sentence, it did not abuse its sentencing discretion. Judgment is affirmed.
United States v. Garcia, 18-2125, appealed from the Western District of Arkansas, per curiam.
Whether admission of DNA evidence of non-testifying scientist violated defendant’s 6th Amendment right of confrontation.
Defendant challenged his unlawful possession of a firearm conviction, arguing that the admission of DNA test results developed by a non-testifying scientist violated his rights under the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the overwhelming evidence that defendant possessed the firearm. Affirmed.
State v. Scott, A18-1199, St. Louis County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Present sense impressions hearsay exception in ineligible person in possession of a firearm trial.
Defendant challenged his conviction of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm, which stemmed from him carrying guns into an apartment. Defendant argued that the trial court erroneously admitted both of two peoples’ out of court statements to police as they were inadmissible hearsay and no exception applied. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that an out of court statement by a witness that defendant carried guns into her bedroom 30 minutes earlier qualified as a present sense impression and that any error in admitting a second witness’ statement did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Affirmed.
State v. Manypenny, A18-2084, Becker County.
Minnesota 2A Defense Lawyer was not attorney of record in this case.
Was the evidence sufficient to convict of felon in possession of a firearm?
Where a defendant in a felon in possession of a firearm case argued that the government only established his proximity to a firearm in a jointly owned car, the defendant controlled the car and was its sole occupant just before the discovery of the gun, and the defendant also fled the scene, which could allow a jury to conclude that he was fleeing due to his illegal possession of the gun. Therefore the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Judgment is affirmed.
United States v. Bridgeforth, 18-3213, appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, per curiam.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Sentence enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony.
Where a defendant challenged a four level sentencing enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, the defendant’s attempt to contest the enhancement fell within the plain language of an appeal waiver, and the waiver was knowing and voluntary, so the appeal is dismissed.
United States v. Guice, 18-1327, appealed from the Eastern District of Missouri, Kelly, J.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Federal court sentence for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of drugs with intent to distribute.
Defendant pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute. Because defendant had prior felony convictions, the District Court determined that defendant was subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Where defendant failed to show that he was sentenced under the unconstitutional residual clause of the ACCA, he was not entitled to relief from his enhanced sentence. Affirmed.
Turner v. United States, 18-2478, appealed from the Northern District of Iowa, per curiam.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer was not attorney of record in this case.
A defendant cannot be sentenced for both ineligible person in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Defendant was convicted of ineligible person in possession of a firearm, and, ineligible person in possession of ammunition. The facts were that defendant was in possession of a firearm that was loaded and robbed a person at gunpoint who was trying to purchase marijuana from him. The defendant argued that he could not be sentenced for both ineligible person in possession of a firearm, and, ineligible person in possession of ammunition. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that under Minn. Stat. §609.035, subd. 1,3, the double jeopardy statute, a trial court cannot convict and sentence a defendant for being an ineligible person in possession of both a firearm and ammunition in violation of Minn. Stat. §624.713, subd. 1(2), when the defendant possesses a single loaded firearm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
State v. Nowels, A19-0415, Ramsey County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted on the grounds that his seizure was not supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the information provided in the 911 call, that an individual matching defendant’s description was armed with a gun and was banging on the caller’s sister’s door threatening to kill everyone. Affirmed.
State v. Haines, A19-1354, Ramsey County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Unlawful possession of a firearm sentence in federal court.
Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm in the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court properly applied a four (4) level increase for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. However, the Court also held that it was error to apply a two (2) level increase for using a minor to commit a crime. Vacated and remanded.
United States v. Roberts, 19-1176, Colloton, Jr. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Was the evidence sufficient to establish defendant’s possessed a firearm?
After a court trial, defendant was found guilty of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed. He argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of felon in possession of a firearm, which has a five (5) year mandatory minimum prison sentence. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the employee’s testimony that she saw defendant holding a handgun was sufficient direct evidence that defendant possessed a firearm. Affirmed.
State v. Phillips, A19-0863, Ramsey County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Whether the District Court properly enhanced defendant’s sentence for felon in possession of a firearm?
Defendant was convicted in federal court of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed his sentence. In sentencing, the District Court properly linked the gun in defendant’s pocket to drugs in his backpack. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony drug offense. Affirmed.
United States v. Mitchell, 19-2780, Benton, J. Appealed from the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Whether a juvenile adjudication of a felony crime of violence constitutes a felony crime of violence conviction?
Defendant was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm because of a juvenile adjudication of a felony crime of violence. Defendant appealed. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in interpreting “felony conviction” as used in the statute to included juvenile delinquency adjudications. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the definition of crime of violence contained in Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. includes juvenile adjudications of felony crimes of violence. Affirmed.
State v. Hines, A19-1390, Hennepin County.
Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Whether in a car on a highway constitutes carrying in a public place?
Defendant was charged with carrying a pistol under the influence in a public place. The trial court, Renville County District Court, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The trial court concluded that having a pistol located in the center console of the personal vehicle of defendant while operating on a public highway did not constitute a public place.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a motor vehicle traveling on a public highway is in a public place for purposes of the crime of carrying a pistol in a public place while under the influence of alcohol.
State v. Serbus, A19-1921, Renville County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Whether defendant’s 2005 Wisconsin felony controlled substance crime conviction constitutes a crime of violence under Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. 5?
Defendant was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to her guilty plea. Defendant moved to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that it was invalid, alleging that her 2005 Wisconsin controlled substance crime does not qualify as a crime of violence under Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. 5. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Minn. Stat. §624.713, subd 1(2) criminalizes possession of a firearm by a person adjudicated delinquent of a crime of violence in another State, and, a Wisconsin controlled substance crime is a crime of violence under Minnesota law. Affirmed.
State v. Gray, A19-0819, Clay County.
Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Whether a juvenile adjudication of a felony crime of violence causes a lifetime ban on possession of firearms?
Defendant was convicted of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm for a juvenile adjudication of 1st degree burglary, which is on the list for disqualifying felony crimes of violence. On appeal, he argued that his previous offense of 1st degree burglary was not a qualifying felony crime of violence that rendered him ineligible to possess a firearm because it was a juvenile adjudication. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that defendant’s appeal failed because after defendant filed his appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that a juvenile adjudication may qualify as a felony conviction of a crime of violence.
State v. Ali, A19-1467, Hennepin County.
Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.