Mr. Torgerson’s client owned his own home, was a graduate from high school, and obtained some higher education at a community college.  He had also become a Licensed Contractor, and a Licensed Real Estate Agent.  He was also President of a renovation firm, where he had been employed for 12 years. 

When her client was 18 years old, some 21 years earlier and a teenager, he was convicted of simple robbery.  For his sentence then, he received a Stay of Imposition, whereby his conviction was deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  In the intervening 22 years.

Ms. Torgerson’s client did not have another felony conviction.  He now wished to have his Second Amendment rights restored, and go hunting, in which he engaged as a child.  His petition was GRANTED by The Honorable Ann Alton.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Here’s an excerpt of her Brief, highlighting some beautiful law in support thereof:

WHETHER THE CARRY PERMIT REQUIREMENT STATUTE IN MINNESOTA MUST BE STRUCK DOWN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Standard of review:

An appeal challenging the constitutionality of a statute involves issues of law for which the standard of review is de novo. State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 135 (Minn. 2005)(cite omitted).

Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Appellant herein, has been convicted of violating the following statute:

Subd. 1a. Permit required;[1] penalty. A person, other than a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place, as defined in section 624.7181, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time is guilty of a felony.

Minn. Stat. §624.714, subd. 1a (2018).

Subdivision 22 of section 624 of the Minnesota Statutes declares the following:

Subd. 22. Short title; construction; severability. This section may be cited as the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003. The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the [S]econd [A]mendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The provisions of this section are declared to be necessary to accomplish compelling state interests in regulation of those rights. The terms of this section must be construed according to the compelling state interest test. The invalidation of any provision of this section shall not invalidate any other provision.

Minn. Stat. §624.714, Subd. 22 (2018)(emphasis added).

Section 624.711 of the Minnesota Statutes, entitled Declaration of policy, of this section, provides the following:

It is not the intent of the legislature to regulate shotguns, rifles and other long guns of the type commonly used for hunting and not defined as pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, or to place costs of administration upon those citizens who wish to possess or carry pistols or semiautomatic military-style assault weapons lawfully, or to confiscate or otherwise restrict the use of pistols or semiautomatic military-style weapons by law-abiding citizens.

Minn. Stat. §624.711 (2018)(emphasis added).

Role of Courts

Courts are “’independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of [our] citizens.’ State courts are, and should be, the first line of defense for individual liberties within the federalist system.” State v. Gray, 413 N.W.2d 107, 111 (Minn. 1987)(emphasis added)(quoting State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn. 1985)).

Additionally, the role of the judiciary is limited to deciding whether a statute is constitutional, not whether it is wise or prudent legislation. State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318, 321 (Minn. 1990)(cites omitted).