2nd Amendment Rights2020-07-06T02:09:51+00:00

Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer

Firearms, guns, Second Amendment, gun rights restoration, carry permit appeals, permit to purchase denial, gun purchase denial, Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota

Attorney Lynne Torgerson, , Esq., a Gun Fights lawyer of excellence, with over 29 years experience, can represent you in such cases, throughout the State of Minnesota.

Second Amendment lawyer, gun rights restoration lawyer, and gun charges lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Esq. 

Lynne Torgerson, Second Amendment lawyer, gun rights restoration lawyer, gun charges lawyer, is here to assist you in getting your gun rights restored.  In Minnesota, it is called a petition for restoration of rights to possess and otherwise deal in firearms.  Ms. Torgerson also represents people on carry permit appeal cases, permit to purchase denials, gun purchase denials, violation of Second Amendment rights, etc.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the following:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security

of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear

Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun rights restoration win by Attorney Lynne Torgerson at Minnesota Court of Appeals

Second Amendment lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Esq., won a major victory at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Years earlier client had been convicted of felony third degree assault out of Washington County, as well as some other offenses.  Her client has now remained law abiding for a good many years and become a very successful business professional.  He therefore brought a petition to restore his gun rights in district court.  The Assistant Washington County Attorney opposed his petition.  At the hearing, Ms. Torgerson’s client testified.  The presiding judge, Judge Tad Jude, granted her client’s petition to restore gun rights.  The State appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals again ruled in favor of Ms. Torgerson’s client.  This case established much better case law for the entire State of Minnesota than had previously existed.  This case is good for the Second Amendment.

Kudos to Ms. Torgerson and her client!

Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in approximately 32 counties in the State of Minnesota, as well as at the Minnesota Court Appeals.  This makes Ms. Torgerson one of the best Second Amendment lawyers in the State of Minnesota!  If you or your loved one needs assistance, please call (612) 339-5073!

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins another appeal at Minnesota Court of Appeals on 2nd Amendment rights in family child custody dispute

Ms. Torgerson was retained to represent a Veteran in connection with a child custody dispute on an appeal from a decision out of Olmsted County, State of Minnesota.

Ms. Torgerson’s client is an Iraq War Veteran, honorably discharged.  He is divorced.  He and his ex-wife share two children.  He has remarried, and has two additional children from his second marriage.  Ms. Torgerson’s client and his wife are 2nd Amendment enthusiasts.  Ms. Torgerson’s client owns a number of firearms, enjoys target shooting with law enforcement on his extensive land, and enjoys teaching his children gun safety, self defense, etc.  In contrast, his ex-wife opposes all such activities.  Even so, there was no request to limit Ms. Torgerson’s client in regard to firearms.  Notwithstanding, the trial court Referee, sua sponte, issued an order that Ms. Torgerson’s client was required to have all his firearms locked in a safe whenever he had custody of his children.  Accordingly, an appeal was taken, that included this issue.  On appeal, Ms. Torgerson’s client argued that such an order violated his Second Amendment rights.  Indeed, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the Referee failed to make sufficient findings, and the trial court Referee’s order restricting Ms. Torgerson’s client’s Second Amendment rights was reversed, and remanded for findings.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in Hennepin County

Gun rights lawyer Lynne Torgerson won another gun rights restoration case, this time out of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had a juvenile sex offense case out of another State, from when he was about 12 years old.  This was an adjudicated felony, and designated a crime of violence under Minnesota Statutes.  Hence, Ms. Torgerson’s client had a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms under both Minnesota and federal law.  Since that time, as an adult, Ms. Torgerson’s client had moved to Minnesota, established a long term relationship, and had maintained a law abiding lifestyle, with perhaps an exception of an old misdemeanor.  Fortunately, the court ordered her client’s rights to possess firearms restored.  Kudos to Ms. Torgerson and her client!

Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins  gun rights restoration case in Stearns County

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won another petition to restore rights to possess firearms.  This time it is out of Stearns County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had been convicted of a 3rd degree burglary in 1992, approximately twenty-six (26) years earlier.  He had no serious case(s) since that time, and had become a model husband, father, employee, church leader, citizen.  Kudos to Ms. Torgerson and her client!

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins  gun rights restoration case in Benton County

Attorney Lynne Torgerson, won another gun rights restoration case out of Benton County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, as a young man in his 20s, had a couple of felonies, about twelve (12) years earlier.  Since that time, he turned his back on that lifestyle, got married, became gainfully employed, and showed that he has matured and is not dangerous.  Additionally, the Assistant County Attorney, Ms. Torgerson’s opposing counsel, complimented Ms. Torgerson, stating he appreciated what a thorough job Ms. Torgerson does on her petitions to restore rights to possess firearms.  Meeting the good cause standard, the Court, Judge Jesse presiding, granted his request to restore his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Kudos to Ms. Torgerson and her client!  Winning!

Gun rights win by attorney Lynne Torgerson in Hibbing, Minnesota

Gun rights restoration lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Esq., can chalk up another big Second Amendment victory–this time in St. Louis County, Hibbing, Minnesota.

Ms. Torgerson’s client had some legal issues a number of years ago.  He has remained law abiding for approximately 12 years now.  He wished to get his Second Amendment rights restored.  He also wished to be able to go hunting.  The Court, Judge Akerson presiding, granted her client’s request.

Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in approximately 27 different venues in the State of Minnesota.  With all due respect, most lawyers have not had cases in 27 different counties.  Ms. Torgerson has won gun rights cases in 27 different venues in the State of Minnesota.  That’s an exceedingly good win record.

Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights for clients in Otter Tail County and Carlton County

Lynne Torgerson, Esq., Second Amendment and gun rights lawyer, again, just won two (2) gun rights restoration cases.  One in Otter Tail County, Minnesota, and another in Carlton County, Minnesota.

Just prior to that, she just recently won two (2) more gun rights restoration cases in the City of Foley, County of Benton, State of Minnesota.  Both cases were in front of the same judge, The Honorable Judge Jesse.  This was after the original judge assigned was removed.  A party has the right to remove one judge per case, for no reason at all, in both criminal and civil cases, as long as the judge has not presided in the case previously.  So, you need to hire a lawyer early in your case, before a judge is assigned, so that your lawyer can remove the judge if necessary.

In any event, four (4) of Ms. Torgerson’s clients recently got their gun rights restored in Otter Tail, Carlton, and Benton Counties.  Ms. Torgerson’s clients had had felony convictions early in their lives, and had turned their lives around and become responsible, law abiding citizens, and contributing members of society.  This is what society wants its youthful offenders to do, and, arguably, they should be rewarded for it.  The judge agreed that these men would now be responsible gun owners, that they had matured, and were not dangerous.  The judge signed the orders of restoration of rights to possess firearms.  These clients now have their permits to purchase and have purchased firearms.  They can also now go hunting, go to target practice, range shooting, etc.  Be sure to vote for Judge Jesse, Judge MacLaughlin, and Judge Hanson, in future elections.  They are Second Amendment supporters.

Now, Ms. Torgerson can add Carlton County to her list of approximately 27 counties in which she has won gun rights cases, as well as at the Minnesota Court of Appeals in February 2016.  This is an awesome record of successes by Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins appeal of wrongful revocation of permit to carry

Top Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins appeal of wrongful revocation of permit to carry out of the County of Dodge, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had obtained a permit to purchase.  He then was issued a permit to carry.  About 1 year later, the Dodge County Sheriff’s Office revoked her client’s permit to carry.  After much legal research, an appeal was filed with the Dodge County District Court.  At the hearing, the Assistant Dodge County Attorney conceded that the Sheriff had wrongfully revoked the permit to carry.  The permit to carry was returned to Ms. Torgerson’s client.  The Dodge County District Court Judge awarded Ms. Torgerson’s client $2400.00 is attorney fees and costs.  Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in 32 counties in the State of Minnesota, as well as at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins motion to terminate probation early with consequent restoration of voting and gun rights in Dakota County

Minnesota Probation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a motion to terminate probation early out of the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, The Honorable M. Michael Baxter presiding.  The defendant had been convicted of felony DWI.  The defendant did well on probation, completing the Safe Streets 1st Program, 30 days of Electronic Alcohol Home Monitoring each year of probation, Victim Impact Panel, random drug testing, cognitive skill program, Alcoholic Anonymous classes, Driving with Care classes, and, had remaining law abiding.  The defendant was also very well liked and respected in the community, ran a successful local business for decades, and engaged in significant volunteer activities.  In Minnesota, while on felony probation, a person cannot vote or possess firearms.  The defendant wanted to get off probation early, in order to vote, and possess firearms.  Finding appropriate bases, the court granted the defendant’s request for early termination from probation.  Consequently, he was able to vote in the 2016 election cycle.  Additionally, his rights to possess firearms was restored.  In Minnesota, there are two (2) types of felonies, a regular felony, and, a crime of violence felony.  For regular felonies, a defendant is prohibited from possessing firearms while on probation.  For crime of violence felonies, a defendant is defendant is prohibited from possessing a firearm for the remainder of that person’s lifetime.  Herein, because the defendant was discharged from probation for a regular felony, he was automatically restored his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq., has won gun rights cases in approximately 32 counties throughout the State of Minnesota, as well as at the Minnesota Court of Appeals

Ms. Torgerson has won gun rights cases, Second Amendment cases, all over the State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson, Minnesota Second Amendment lawyer, gun rights restoration lawyer, has won firearms cases in the following counties:

Aitkin County,

Anoka County,

Becker County,

Benton County,

Carlton County,

Carver County,

Cass County,

Chippewa County,

Chisago County,

Clay County,

Crow Wing County,

Dakota County,

Dodge County,

Goodhue County,

Hennepin County,

Hubbard County,

Isanti County,

Kanabec County,

Morrison County,

Olmsted County,

Otter Tail County,

Pine County,

Rice County,

Sherburne County,

Stearns County,

Steele County,

St. Louis County,

St. Louis County – Hibbing,

St. Louis County – Virginia,

Todd County,

Washington County,

Watonwan County,

Yellow Medicine County; and

the Minnesota Court of Appeals!

That’s gun rights victories in 32 different counties in the State of Minnesota, plus, at the Minnesota Court of Appeals!  That is a winning record!  She wants to help you win in your county too!  Ms. Torgerson, Esq. enjoys expanding the number of counties in which she has won these cases.

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of the County of Aitkin, State of Minnesota

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Aitkin, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was 35 years old.  He owned his own home.  He was a high school graduate.  He had graduated from the University of Minnesota with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business, and, a Minor in Psychology.  He had obtained a Real Estate License.  He had been employed as a Real Estate Agent for 10 years.  He grew up in a family of hunters who owned hunting land, which he desired to inherit.  He also wanted to enjoy hunting with his family again.  Approximately 14 years earlier, he became prohibited from possessing firearms due to a 5th degree felony possession of a controlled substance conviction.  About 13 years ealier, he also had a domestic misdemeanor harassment and criminal mischief conviction from another State.  Finding good case, the Aitkin County District Court granted his petition to restore his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins restoration of rights to possess firearms in Becker County, State of Minnesota

Lynne Torgerson, Minnesota Second Amendment lawyer, won another gun rights restoration case.  This time it was out of the City of Detroit Lakes, County of Becker, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson has now, therefore, won gun rights cases in 32 counties in the State of Minnesota, as well as at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The Honorable Galen Vaa presided.  Judge Vaa is a noble supporter of the Second Amendment.  Judge Vaa complimented Ms. Torgerson, stating that her petition was one of most well reasoned memoranda on the Second Amendment that he has ever seen.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had an old felony, approximately 30 years old felony, that had caused him to lose his gun rights.  He had led a law abiding lifestyle since, and been a contributing member of society.  Having established good cause, the Court awarded Ms. Torgerson’s client with restoration of his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Carver County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won another gun rights restoration case out of Carver County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had been convicted of 4th degree criminal sexual conduct, a crime of violence, as defined by Minnesota Statutes.  The trial court found that her client had remained crime free for approximately 15 years and wanted to go hunting, and granted the request for restoration of rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in County of Clay, State of Minnesota

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins restoration of Second Amendment rights to possess firearms in the County of Clay, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was 30 years old, engaged to be married.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was a high school graduate, obtaining straight A’s.  His extracurricular activities included basketball, track and field, football, field hockey, Future Business Leaders of America, and jazz band.  He was also a university graduate.  He was employed as a Store Manager for 7 years.  He had only one (a) disqualifying offense, a drug offense involving marijuana, for which he received a stay of imposition of sentence.  The conviction is now deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  Ms. Torgerson’s client wanted to be able to hunt with his Father and future in laws, and, be able to go target shooting with his friends.  He also wanted to be able to engage in self defense, should the need ever arise.  Finding good cause, the court, The Honorable Lisa N. Borgen presiding, granted his request.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun rights restoration win in City of Brainerd, County of Crow Wing, State of Minnesota

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. wins another gun rights restoration case, this time in Crow Wing County, State of Minnesota, which is in the City of Brainerd.  And, this time, it is a female!  Go ladies!  Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in approximately 28 different counties/jurisdictions in the State of Minnesota.  Most lawyers have not even had cases in 28 different counties, yet Ms. Torgerson has won gun rights cases in approximately 30 different counties, as well as at the Minnesota Court of Appeals!

In this case, Ms. Torgerson’s client had had a felony conviction a few years earlier, but had turned her life around.  The presiding judge, Judge Earl E. Maus, is a true Second Amendment supporter.  Vote for Judge Maus!  It is evident that he supports our Second Amendment Constitutional rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hennepin County

Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won restoration of gun rights in the Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota, The Honorable Susan Burke presiding.  Approximately 20 years earlier, in 2000, as a juvenile, Ms. Torgerson’s client had been adjudicated guilty of 3rd degree burglary.  Consequently, at that time, he lost his rights to possess firearms for the remainder of his lifetime.  Since that time, Ms. Torgerson’s client had obtained his GED, established his career in oil rigs, and gotten married.  He also acquired land in northern Minnesota on which he would like to hunt.  The trial court concluded that he was not a risk to public safety and granted his request to restore his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun rights lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration following aiding and abetting drive by shooting conviction out of Hennepin County

Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, as a youth, was convicted of the crime of violence of aiding and abetting drive by shooting.  Since that time, he had become a firefighter and a mayor of a local suburban city testified on his behalf.  Further, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office did not oppose restoration.  Consequently, the court ordered restoration of his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hennepin County

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.  As a juvenile and teenager, Ms. Torgerson’s client was adjudicated delinquent of 3rd degree burglary.  The incident involved Ms. Torgerson’s client and a friend breaking into a home and stealing between $1000 and $1500.  This disqualified him from possession of a firearm for life.  Now, 20 years later, client sought restoration of rights to possess firearms.  The State did not oppose the petition.  The Court noted that the disqualifying case did not involve firearms, and that client had no firearm related conviction.  Petitioner had obtained his GED, gotten married, and was a responsible, long term employee in oil derricking.  The trial court held that Petitioner was not a danger to public safety.  The Court, The Honorable Susan Burke presiding, finding good cause, granted Petitioner’s request to restore his gun rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hubbard County

Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in the County of Hubbard, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had one prior disqualifying conviction.  As a teenager, he had pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct for non-consensual contact with a female’s breast.  He had received a stay of imposition of sentence, whereby the conviction was now deemed a misdemeanor.  Whether the petition should have been granted was contested by the State.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was a high school graduate, a cosmetology school graduate, and was a responsible business owner, husband and father.  Additionally, since his offense, fourteen (14) years had passed, with no similar offense.  There was no evidence of drug, alcohol, or mental health concerns.  Prior to his offense, Ms. Torgerson’s client had a long positive record of safe use of firearms stemming from hunting with his father, which was a bonding experience.  Finding good cause, The Honorable Robert D. Tiffany, granted Ms. Torgerson’s request to restore his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in Kanabec County

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case in Kanabec County.  Since his disqualifying offenses, Ms. Torgerson’s client had gotten married, established long term stable employment, and had remained crime free.  He did not use illegal drugs and never had any mental health counseling or diagnosis.  Earlier in life, he had become addicted to methamphetamine.  Consequently, he was convicted of approximately four (4) disqualifying felony convictions of crimes of violence.  Then his criminal record ceased.  After the passage of time, approximately seven (7) years, Ms. Torgerson’s client wanted to get his gun rights restored.  Ms. Torgerson’s client lived far out in the country, he wanted to go deer and boar hunting, show his children how to hunt, and be able to scare critters, mountain lions, and coyotes, away.  Having found good cause, The Honorable Stony Hiljus granted petitioner’s request to restore his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.  T.R.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Pine County

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in the County of Pine, State of Minnesota.  Petitioner was 35 years old.  He was married 10 years with 4 children.  He was a homeowner.  His wife home schooled their children. In high school, Petitioner’s interests included fishing, bow hunting, being outdoors, basketball and softball.  After high school, Petitioner had attended some college.  Petitioner had been employed 7 years with a security company, providing security systems at banks.  Petitioner and his wife also had a very successful second business.  Petitioner had never needed any drug or alcohol treatment.  Petitioner was active in his church, photography, and gardening.  Eighteen years earlier he had been convicted of a disqualifying conviction of burglary.   He received a stay of imposition, whereby his conviction was now deemed a misdemeanor. Petitioner now wanted his Second Amendment rights restored, and to take his children hunting and target shooting.  Finding good cause, the Court granted Petitioner restoration of his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in Ramsey County

Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won restoration of rights to possess firearms in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, some 22 years earlier in 1998, was convicted of felony threats of violence which arose out of a road rage incident.  This was a disqualifying case.  He received a stay of imposition of sentence whereby the conviction is now deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  Ms. Torgerson’s client is now 68 years old, had been married 43 years, and he and his wife had resided in the home they own for 30 years.  He was a high school and college graduate.  Now retired, his last employment was a fuel delivery driver.  He had completed treatment and had not consumed alcohol in 27 years.  He also does not use illegal drugs.  He now wished to inherit firearms, and visit the shooting range.  The court, The Honorable Thomas Gilligan presiding, granted Ms. Torgerson’s client’s request.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. wins gun rights restoration following juvenile adjudications for crimes of violence out of Sherburne County

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins another case, this time where her client had lost his rights because of juvenile adjudications of crimes of violence.  In this case, Ms. Torgerson’s client, as a young boy, engaged in some juvenile delinquency behavior, which resulted in him being adjudicated guilty of crimes of violence.  Since that time, he has turned his life around.  A petition to restore was filed, a hearing was held, and the judge rewarded Ms. Torgerson’s client with an order restoring his gun rights.  Bravo to Ms. Torgerson and her client!

It is worth noting that just recently, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has started checking juvenile records for disqualifying convictions that occurred when people were juveniles, and then the BCA is cross referencing this information with people who have permits to purchase and permits to carry.  If applicable, then the BCA is sending out revocations of permits to purchase and to carry.  Notwithstanding, there is hope.  People can get their gun rights restored.  Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson can help you along these lines.  Please give her a call for representation (612) 339-5073.

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in St. Louis County – Virginia

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case in the County of St. Louis, City of Virginia, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, the Petitioner, was now 41 years old, married for 10 years with 2 children.  Petitioner owned his own home.  He had graduated from the Minnesota School of Business with a B.A. in Information Technology.  He had obtained a solid position with a very large employer in his career field.  He had become a hockey coach.  He no longer consumed alcohol, and had stopped about 15 years earlier.  He had good experiences with firearms as a child.  He now wished to get his Second Amendment rights restored, to hunt, to teach his son to hunt, go to the gun range with his Father, and go hunting and shooting with his brother in law.  He had remained law abiding for about 20 years, with a not insignificant criminal history earlier than that, which included burglary, felony thefts, felony DWI.  He then turned his life around and became a productive, law abiding citizen.  Finding good cause, the Honorable Gary J. Pagliaccetti restored Ms. Torgerson’s client’s rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun rights lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of Watonwan County, State of Minnesota

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won another petition to restore rights to possess firearms.  This time it was out of Watonwan County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had two old felonies from 1996 and 2005, 22 and 13 years old respectively.  Having established good cause for restoration, the judge granted same.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. wins gun rights restoration following judicial commitment

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson won another case today in Benton County, Minnesota, thus restoring her client’s Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  This case came approximately fifteen years after her client had lost his gun rights because of a judicial commitment.  This type of case is less common.  The law regarding restoration of gun rights following a judicial commitment is found in Minnesota Statute section 624.713.

Section 624.713, subdivision 4 of the Minnesota Statutes provides that:

(a)  A person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition under subdivision 1, due to a commitment resulting from a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, developmentally disabled, mentally ill and dangerous, or chemically dependent, may petition a court to restore the person’s ability to possess a firearm or ammunition.

(b)  The court may grant the relief sought in paragraph (a) in accordance with the principles of due process if the circumstances regarding the person’s disqualifying condition and the person’s record and reputation are determined to be such that:

(1)  the person is not likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to public safety; and

(2) the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

(c)  When determining whether a person has met the requirement of paragraph (b), clause (1), the court may consider evidence from a licensed medical doctor or clinical psychologist that the person is no longer suffering from the disease or condition that caused the disability or that the disease or condition has been successfully treated for a period of three consecutive years.

Where these standards are met, then a person may get his or her gun rights restored by filing a petition in the district court, with the help of expert gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson, Esq.

Ms. Torgerson’s client met these standards and the court granted her client’s petition to restore his rights to possess firearms.

Very unusual gun rights restoration win together with discharge from probation

Gun rights restoration attorney Lynne Torgerson recently achieved an amazing victory in Hennepin County District Court.  Her client was on felony probation, after being convicted of a felony, terroristic threats with a firearm.  The original plea agreement provided that if her client performed well on probation, that upon discharge from probation, the Court would restore his gun rights.  Her client did perform exceedingly well on probation.  He then brought a motion to be discharged from probation early, and, for restoration of his gun rights.  The State vehemently fought the restoration of gun rights, in opposition to what he had originally been promised by the State.  Ultimately, the Court ordered that Ms. Torgerson’s client be discharged from probation and that his gun rights be restored.  Her client recently received his permit to purchase.  Bravo!

Press Release:  https://www.prlog.org/12658420-attorney-lynne-torgerson-second-amendment-lawyer-wins-probation-discharge-and-gun-rights-restoration.pdf

Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in Chippewa County

Gun rights restoration lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Esq., won another gun rights restoration case in Chippewa County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in 29 counties in the State of Minnesota.  Under Minnesota law, a person can get their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms restored even after being convicted of a felony crime of violence.  This usually occurs where a person has been convicted of a felony years earlier, and have turned their life around, living a life of a law abiding citizen.

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins restoration of rights to possess firearms in Cass County, State of Minnesota

Attorney Lynne Torgerson just won another gun rights case, this time in Cass County District Court, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in 29 different counties in the State of Minnesota.  Does any other lawyer in the State of Minnesota beat this record of victories?  Ms. Torgerson’s client, earlier as a young man, had a felony crime of violence conviction, a second degree assault conviction, as a youth, involving the use of a motor vehicle as a dangerous weapon to frighten another.  Said client has since matured, a good number of years have passed without recidivism, and the evidence showed he is not dangerous.  He has gotten married, graduated from higher education, obtained gainful employment in his chosen field, etc.  Congratulations to Ms. Torgerson and her client for a job well done!

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of Otter Tail County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Otter Tail, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had a disqualifying conviction which prohibited him from possessing a firearm for the remainder of his lifetime.  Since the resolution of that case, Ms. Torgerson’s client had become a law abiding citizen of society, and, inter alia, was employed as a counselor at a mental health clinic.  Finding good case, the court granted Ms. Torgerson’s client’s petition to restore his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in Stearns County

Minnesota gun rights attorney Lynne Torgerson won restoration of gun rights out of the County of Stearns, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had earlier, as a teenager, been convicted of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct.  Having established good cause, the Court granted his request to restore his gun rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson and client!

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins another gun rights restoration case out of Stearns County

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson won another gun rights restoration case out of Stearns County.  The disqualifying offense was a 3rd degree burglary.  Having established good cause, Ms. Torgerson’s client’s rights to possess firearms was restored.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins another gun rights restoration in Benton County

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson won another case out of Benton County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, as a youth, did not have an insignificant criminal history.  However, he put that behind him, and remained law abiding for 18 years.  Finding good cause, the Court granted his request for restoration of his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson and her client!

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration following felony drug convictions

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a petition to restore rights to possess firearms out of the County of Benton, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client showed that he was not dangerous and had matured.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, now in his 50s, was married, graduated from high school, attended trade school, and had a very good job with a construction company.  In his past, after developing a cocaine addiction after his divorce, her client incurred four (4) felony controlled substance convictions and several theft related convictions.  Thereafter, he overcame his addiction, through treatment and the un-ending support of his family.  He also became a law abiding citizen and his former probation agent supported reinstatement of his rights to possess firearms.  Consequently, the court ordered restoration of his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done client and Ms. Torgerson!

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins another case out of Benton County

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson won another case out of Benton County, State of Minnesota.  The disqualifying crimes of conviction were 2nd degree aggravated robbery, and, aiding and abetting 1st degree burglary.  Petitioner had committed these crimes when he was a teenager.  Since that time, he had graduated from high school, gotten married, established a career path, wanted to become a Hunting Guide, and had no convictions for 11 years.  Petitioner also wanted to get his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms restored, go hunting, teach his children gun safety and to hunt, and maintain the family tradition.  Finding good cause, the court restored petitioner’s rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Gun rights restoration attorney Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration case out of Chippewa County

Minnesota gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Chippewa, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, earlier in life, had two (2) disqualifying drug convictions.  One was a 3rd degree possession of methamphetamine, for which he/she received a prison sentence of 84 months.  Thereafter, Ms. Torgerson’s client eliminated drugs and alcohol from his/her life, and did not have a criminal conviction for 15 years.  He also was a homeowner, had full physical custody of his son, owed no child support, graduated from college with an A.A. in Auto Body Technology, obtained training for CPR and First Aid, and was a long term ten (10) year employee.  Well done client and Ms. Torgerson!

Second Amendment attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case out of Carlton County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of Carlton County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was 26 years old.  He obtained his GED in 2008.  At the time of seeking restoration of his rights to possess firearms, he had joined the Union and was in an Apprenticeship for Labor, having obtained 2100 of the 4000 hours needed.  He was also employed through the Union, as a Construction Laborer.  Her client, in his past, had been convicted of felony theft, felony fleeing in  a motor vehicle, and misdemeanor reckless discharge of a firearm, for shooting rounds during target practice at a 4 foot thick tree.  Ms. Torgerson’s client wished to get his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms restored; his right to keep and bear arms.  he also wanted to hunt for food, and exercise self defense should the need ever arise.  Finding good cause, the court granted the request.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins restoration of gun rights in Carver County

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Carver County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had been convicted of 3rd degree felony criminal sexual conduct for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 15 or 16 year old girl when he was 21 years old.  When he was 39 years old, he sought restoration of his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Over the intervening 18 years, he had obtained his GED, attended some college, had sole legal and physical custody of his teenage child, and established a career at his family owned business.  He also had successfully completed his probation, completed sex offender treatment, and completed his 10 year registration period with no violations.  Also, because he had received a stay of imposition of sentence, his conviction was deemed a misdemeanor.  Additionally, since his conviction occurred in 1995, he actually should have been automatically restored to his rights to possess firearms 10 years after discharge from probation.  He desired to have his Second Amendment rights restored, go hunting, go hunting with his child, and inherit firearms.  Finding good cause, the court order restoration of his gun rights.  Well done client and Ms. Torgerson.

Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case out of Chisago County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won a gun rights restoration case out of Chisago County, State of Minnesota.  When Petitioner, Ms. Torgerson’s client was younger, he/she had a not insignificant number of cases.  Petitioner had an issue with methamphetamine, resulting drug related conviction(s) and a consequent prison sentence.  Since that case, 12 years elapsed, wherein Petitioner remained law abiding.  He also got married, obtained a GED, and completed community college.  He obtained gainful employment, wherein it would be helpful if he could possess firearms, as his employer turned down new business because Petitioner could not possess firearms.  Petitioner no longer used illegal drugs.  He had completed drug treatment, which was helpful.  As a child, Petitioner had positive experiences with firearms.  Finding good cause, The Honorable Robert Rancourt granted Petitioner’s petition to restore his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done client, and, Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in Crow Wing County 

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case out of Crow Wing County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was a single mother, who worked in nursing.  In her earlier years, Ms. Torgerson’s client had been convicted of felony 4th degree assault, 4th degree criminal damage to property, and minor consumption.  The 4th degree assault conviction caused Ms. Torgerson’s client to lose her gun rights for life.  After turning her life around, Ms. Torgerson’s client brought a petition to restore her gun rights under Minnesota Statute section 609.165, subd. 1d.  Fortunately, the court granted her client’s petition to restore her rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won restoration of gun rights in Olmsted County 

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson was restoration of gun rights in the City of Rochester, County of Olmsted, State of Minnesota.  As a young man, Ms. Torgerson’s client had issues with drugs which resulted in four (4) felony controlled substance convictions and landed him in prison.  Since those cases, Mr. Torgerson had matured, was now in his late 30s, married, children and a homeowner.  He had turned his life around, established a long term career, no longer used illegal drugs, and had remained crime conviction free for 15 years.  He then wished to be able to again exercise his Second Amendment rights, and, inherit firearms.  The standard for restoration is supposed to be maturity and lack of evidence of dangerousness.  Fortunately, Ms. Torgerson’s client’s request for restoration of his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms was granted.  Ms. Torgerson has now won gun rights cases in 30 different counties in the State of Minnesota as well as at the Minnesota Court of Appeals!  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in Isanti County  

Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a petition to restore gun rights in Isanti County, State of Minnesota.  At the time of restoration, Ms. Torgerson’s client was 38 years old, married, with children.  In 1992, Ms. Torgerson’s client obtained his GED.  Subsequently, he attended Anoka Technical College.  He had been employed with the same employer for 8 years, full time.  He had completed drug and alcohol treatment.  He had remained drug free.  His prior convictions included 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct, from when he was 20 years old and being involved with a 15 year old female, failing to register, aiding and abetting felony robbery for stealing baseball cards at a card shop.  As a juvenile, his offenses included possession of marijuana and DWI.  His petition to restore was granted.  Interestingly, at the time of restoration, he was still required to register as a predatory offender.  Consequently, he was permitted to obtain restoration of his rights to possess firearms; however, a statute prohibited from being able to carry or obtaining a permit to carry.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in Stearns County 

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration case in Stearns County, State of Minnesota.  In early life, Ms. Torgerson’s client had been in the foster care system, and was abused therein.  In early adulthood, Ms. Torgerson’s client had difficulties with drugs and alcohol.  This caused Ms. Torgerson’s to have a significant number of misdemeanor offenses.  Later, Ms. Torgerson’s client had a felony burglary conviction, but no one was injured or the like.  Subsequently, Ms. Torgerson’s client turned his life around.  All in all, Ms. Torgerson’s client had served in the Air Force with an Honorable Discharge, graduated from University and attended graduate school.  He was gainfully employed with the Veteran’s Administration for 10 years.  He also had established a future career plan of further establishing a business to help veteran’s.  He also no longer used alcohol or illegal drugs.  He had also had no criminal conviction for 14 years.  Fortunately, his petition to restore his rights to possess firearms was GRANTED.  Well done client and Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hennepin County 

Ms. Torgerson’s client, now 39 years old, sought restoration of his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms in Hennepin County.  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.

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in Hennepin County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won gun rights restoration in Hennepin County, the Honorable Joseph Klein presiding.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was a high school graduate.  He was a United States Army Veteran, with Special Forces training, with an Honorable Discharge.  He had an established career.  He was a soccer coach.  As a child and in the military, he had extensive experience with firearms.  Ms. Torgerson’s client wanted to get his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms restored.  He wanted to hunt with his aging father, before he passed.  He wanted to teach his children how to properly use firearms.  He had one (1) prior felony crime of violence conviction for 1st degree burglary.  He essentially punched the man cheating with his girlfriend.  He has had no subsequent disqualifying convictions for eight (8) years.  Finding good cause, Ms. Torgerson’s client’s request was granted.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson files brief with Minnesota Court of Appeals to strike down the carry permit requirement statute as unconstitutional.  Here’s an excerpt of her Brief, highlighting some beautiful law in support thereof:

  1. 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 longguns 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).

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution[2]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the following:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

U.S. Const. amend. II (1791).[3]

At the time of the founding, as now, to “’bear,’” means to “’carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (citing Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989). In simple terms, this means that under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, citizens of the United States are entitled to own and have, and, carry around, firearms (to have them and carry them around).

Second Amendment Generally

The right to possess firearms, the right to keep and bear arms, is a fundamental right.[4] See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, (2008). “’It was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.’” Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241-242 (1891)). In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, “the opinion explained that the right ‘is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.’” Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 553).

The Second Amendment is a God Given, Inalienable Right

Constitution signer John Dickinson, like many of the others in his day, defined an inalienable rights as a right “which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.” David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 12 (2000)(citing John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, R.T.H. Halsey, editor (New York: The Outlook Company, 1903), p. xlii, letter to the Society on the Occasion of Laying the Cornerstone of an Astronomical Observatory on the 10th of November, 1843 (Cincinnati: Shepard & Co., 1843, pp. 13-14)).

John Adams, United States President, Signer of the Declaration, a signer of the Bill of Rights, declared that:

Resistance to sudden violence for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I never surrendered to the public by the compact of society and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would . . . .

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 24 (2000)(quoting John Adams, On Private Revenge, Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763)).

Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration, and Father of the American Revolution, declared that:

[T]he said Constitution [should] be never

construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 25 (2000)(quoting Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Held in the Year 1788 (Boston: William White, 1856), pp. 86, 266, February 6, 1788; see also William V. Wells, the Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. III, p. 267)).

The Second Amendment is an American Guarantee

[T]he advantage of being armed [is an advantage which] the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . . [I]n the several kingdoms of Europe . . . the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 26 to 27 (2000)(quoting James Madison, U.S. President, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress).

The Second Amendment is Necessary

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 30 (2000)(quoting Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U.S. House, 1847 – 1849; Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1852), p. 172, from an Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Bible Society in Boston, May 28, 1849)).

Self Defense

The first reason for the Second Amendment is the right of self defense, defense of family, property, etc. In regard to self defense:

The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’”

Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting 1 Tucker’s Blackstone 143 at App. 300)).

Defense of the United States

To have men armed, on the ground, is also needed for adequate protection of the United States and deterrence of enemies. Historically, at the time frame of the enactment of the Second Amendment, “’Ordinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’”[5] Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting Miller, 307 U.S. at 179)). At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, the body of all citizens capable of military service, were expected to bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ . This way, in the event the United States was ever attacked, men would be armed and ready to defend the United States. Interestingly, this evidently also has a deterrent function. This is shown by a quote from Commander in Chief of Japan during World War II, Isoroku Yamamoto. Commander Yamamoto is quoted as saying:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

What this shows is that enemies of the United States are deterred from attacking the United States because of the perception that the citizens of the United States are armed with firearms and will shoot and kill enemies who attack. Thus, the Second Amendment clearly also provides a deterrent effect on enemies of the United States.

Tyrants and Tyranny

Early on, the Second Amendment was discussed by the judge and professor, Thomas Cooley, who wrote a massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations. Heller, 554 U.S. ___. He wrote that the “Second Amendment . . . ‘was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people.’” Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting Cooley, at 270)).

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree . . . Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belong to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I and his two wicked sons . . . .”

Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)).

With respect to tyrants and tyranny, “[o]ne of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms,[6] and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (quoting A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States §450 (reprinted in 1986)).

History shows that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. Heller, 554 U.S. ___. An example is that between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. Heller, 554 U.S. (citing J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31-53 (1994); l. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981)). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, James II had ordered general disarmaments of region home to his religion enemies.[7] Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (citing Malcolm, 103-106)).

Another significant legal commentary was that of John Randolph Tucker. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 20 (2000). Tucker was dean of a law school, a constitutional law professor, the Attorney General of Virginia, and the President of the American Bar Association. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 22 (2000). In 1899, Tucker authored his two volume commentaries on the Constitution. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 20 (2000). In those commentaries, Tucker explained:

The Second Amendment reads thus: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This prohibition indicates that the security of liberty against the tyrannical tendency of government is only to be found in the right of the people to keep and bear arms in resisting the wrongs of government.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 22 (2000)(quoting John Randolph Tucker, The Constitution of the United States, Henry St. George Tucker, editor (Chicago: Callaghan & Co., 1899), Vol. II, p. 671, 25).

And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 26 (2000)(quoting Thomas Jefferson, United States President, Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Vol. II, p. 268, to Colonel Smith on November 13, 1787)).

The Militia Means All United States Citizens

Historically, every private individual citizen was considered a part of the public defense. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 32 (2000). As explained by Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration and an original framer of the Second Amendment:

[T]he militia shall always . . . included, according to the past and general usage of the States, all men capable of bearing arms.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 32 (2000)(quoting Lee, Additional Letters, pp. 169-170, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788)). For this reason, “militia,” in the Second Amendment, was understood to be every individual citizen rather than just the army of the organized military. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 32 (2000).

A militia . . . are in fact the people themselves . . . [and] are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns. Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, a Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress

The militia . . . are . . .the people at large. Tench Coxe, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Assistant Secretary of the Treasure Under President George Washington

The militia is composed of free citizens. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”

Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. George Mason, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, “Father of the Bill of Rights”

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 33 (2000)(quoting Lee, Additional Letters, pp. 169-170, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788; Tench Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution of the United States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention at Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and Since Adopted and Ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States (Philadelphia: Zechariah Poulson, 1788), p. 21; Samuel Adams, Writings, Vol. III, p. 251, to James Warren on January 7, 1776); Debates . . . of the Convention of Virginia, p. 302, George Mason on June 16, 1788; see also Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, p. 425 (Elliot’s incorrectly lists the date as June 14; it is properly June 16)).

When the United States Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, the first federal law on this subject, it defined “militia of the United States,” not as the Continental Army or any other organized military body, but rather, as including almost every adult male in the United States. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 33 (2000).

The Senate Judiciary Committee noted:

The proposal [for the wording of the Second Amendment] finally passed the House in its present form: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people[8] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing for the common defense” . . . .

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 22-23 (2000)(citing The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February, 1982, pp. 9, 17).       Youth Included

[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 26 (2000)(quoting Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress; Richard Henry Lee, An additional Number of Letters From The Federal Farmer To The Republican (New York: 1788), p. 170, Letter IVIII, January 25, 1788)).

Historically Citizens Were Required to Own Firearms, Have Ammunition, and to Carry Firearms In Public

Historically, American citizens were required to both have firearms, and, ammunition. A 1623 Virginia Law required citizens to be well armed before traveling. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 30 (2000). In 1631, Virginia law required:

That men go not to work . . . without their arms. All men that are fitting to bear arms shall bring their pieces to the church, [and] upon pain of every offense . . . pay 2 lb of tobacco.

David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 30 (2000).

In 1658, Virginia required every household to have a functioning firearm within his house. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 30 (2000).

In 1673, the law provided that if a person was too poor to purchase a firearm, the government would provide him one, for which the person would be required to pay when able. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 30 – 31 (2000).

In 1676, the law provided that “Liberty is granted to all persons to carry their arms wheresoever they go.” David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 31 (2000).

In 1632, The New Plymouth Colony required that “each person . . . have piece, powder, and shot; a sufficient musket or other serviceable piece . . . .” David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 31 (2000).

In 1639, The Newport Colony required that “none shall come to any public meeting without his weapon.” David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 31 (2000)(citing Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, J. Bartlett, editor (Providence: 1856), Vol. I, p. 94 (1639)).

In 1770, the State of Georgia provided that “for the better security of the inhabitants,” it is required that every resident “to carry firearms to places of public worship.” David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 32 (2000)(citing Statutes, Colonial and Revolutionary, 1768 to [1805], Volume 19 of the Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, Allen D. Candler, editor (Atlanta: C. P. Byrd, State Printer, 1911), Vol. I, p. 137)).

Under the Militia Act of 1792, each adult was required, by law, to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. David Barton, The Second Amendment, p. 33 (2000)(citing An Abridgment of The Laws of The United States, William Graydon, editor (Harrisburg: John Wyeth, 1803), p. 293, An Act of May 8, 1792)).

Summary

The Second Amendment is a codification of a pre-existing right, and it includes the right of self defense, defense of the State, repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections, deterrence of same, and defense against and deterrence of tyranny.[9] Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (citing 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 n.8 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)). It applies to all citizens of the United States. All citizens should have firearms and ammunition.

Constitutional Carry

In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, refers to the legal carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit. Wikipedia, Constitutional Carry (Mar. 11, 2019). The phrase “constitutional carry” reflects the view that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not abide restrictions on gun rights, including the right to carry or “bear” arms. Wikipedia, Constitutional Carry (Mar. 11, 2019). Indeed, there is no requirement that any state enact any law requiring a permit to carry. Further, there are several, currently numbering fifteen (15) States, of our United States of America, that do not require any permit to carry a handgun. Wikipedia, Constitutional Carry (Mar. 11, 2019). They are the following:

  • Alaska;
  • Arizona;
  • Arkansas;
  • Idaho (residents only);
  • Kansas;
  • Maine;
  • Mississippi;
  • Missouri;
  • New Hampshire;
  • North Dakota (residents only; concealed carry only);
  • Oklahoma;
  • South Dakota;
  • Vermont;
  • West Virginia; and
  • Wyoming (residents only).

Wikipedia, Constitutional Carry (Mar. 11, 2019).

Hence, thirty percent (30%), nearly one-third (1/3) of the States in our Union have no permit to carry a handgun requirement.

Strict Scrutiny

Where a government act or legislation infringes upon a fundamental right, the challenged act or legislation is subject to strict scrutiny.[10] In re Women of State of Minnesota by Doe v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn. 1995)(right to privacy is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny); In re Linehan, 557 N.W.2d 171, 181 (Minn. 1996)(right to liberty is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny)(citing Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d at 914 and 922 (Wahl, J., dissenting)); Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 312 (Minn. 1993). Where a state statute infringes upon the exercise of a fundamental right, the statute is subject to strict scrutiny. See San Antonio Independent School Dist. V. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)(citing Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375-376 (1971); Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)).

Under a strict scrutiny analysis, the challenged legislation must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In re Linehan, 557 N.W.2d 171, 181 (Minn. 1996)(citing Young v. Weston, 898 F. Supp. 744, 748 (W.D. Wash. 1995); State v. Post, 197 Wis.2d 279, 302, 541 N.W.2d 115, 122 (1995)). Deprivation or infringement of a fundamental right requires the government to prove the existence of a compelling governmental interest in continuing the deprivation or infringement and to demonstrate that no alternative means are available that involve a lesser deprivation or infringement. In re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910, 922 (Minn. 1994); Mitchell v. Steffen, 487 N.W.2d 896, 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)(statute must be shown to be necessary to achieve some compelling governmental purpose). It must also be shown that the statute uses the least burdensome means of accomplishing its purpose. Mitchell v. Steffen, 487 N.W.2d 896, 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)(citing Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1003, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972). A statute affecting a fundamental right must be drawn with “’precision.’” Mitchell v. Steffen, 487 N.W.2d 896, 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)(quoting Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343, 92 S.Ct. at 1003; Shapiro, 394 U.S. at 631, 89 S.Ct. at 1329-30)). Further, where an act is subject to strict scrutiny, the burden of persuasion rests with the government. In re Linehan, 557 N.W.2d 171, 181 (Minn. 1996)(citing Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d at 914 and 922 (Wahl, J., dissenting)). Additionally, “[t]he burden on a state[11] is ‘almost always insurmountable,’ and a statute will rarely survive the strict scrutiny test.” Mitchell v. Steffen, 487 N.W.2d 896, 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)(quoting Eddleman v. Center Township of Marion County, 723 F. Supp. 85, 90 n.10 (S.D. Ind. 1989)). Where the government fails to prove that the statute in question in necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, the courts must hold that the provisions are unconstitutional.

Herein, the requirement for a permit before exercising the constitutional right to carry a firearm does indeed infringe upon a fundamental right. Accordingly, this statute is subject to strict scrutiny.[12]

Herein, absent obtaining a permit to carry, exercising one’s constitutional rights constitutes either a gross misdemeanor or felony. Such a statute fails strict scrutiny. First, we have a God given, inalienable, right to carry. Carrying in public would simply be the exercise of Second Amendment protected behavior. Then, this statute comes in, and places severe criminal punishment upon constitutionally protected behavior. This statutes imposes severe criminal punishment, up to a year in jail, with a permanent criminal conviction on one’s record, upon constitutional protected behavior, upon a law abiding citizen. This must be struck down as unconstitutional. Granted the purpose of the statute is to have responsible people exercising this right, with perhaps the requirement of a class to prove same. However, absent evidence to the contrary, such should be presumed. Indeed, several states are so presuming, by enacting constitutional carry. Equally important, there are less burdensome measures, more narrow, that could be imposed, and less punitive measures, that could be imposed, to achieve the same result. For example, if a citizen failed to obtain a permit to carry, a civil monetary penalty could be imposed, rather than incarceration, and a permanent criminal record. Or, a requirement to take a class within a certain amount of time could be imposed, with a civil monetary penalty being imposed for failure to do so. For these reasons, this statute fails strict scrutiny and must be struck down as unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment.

Also, another example is, a person could lawfully possess firearms in one’s home. Say, for example, they did not wish to have to obtain a permit to carry, they did not wish to have to pay for a class, and pay for a permit to carry, which involves the significant expense of approximately $100 for a class, and $100 for a permit to carry. Then, said person could perhaps witness a person being a victim of a crime, out in front of their house, perhaps on the sidewalk, or in the public street, perhaps of an assault, a robbery, someone breaking into their car, slashing tires, damaging windshield wipers, etc. Naturally, said citizen should aid in the defense of said victim. However, if the citizen carried his firearm outside to defend said victim, he would instantly be either committing a gross misdemeanor or a felony. This infringement is against good public policy, and, infringes upon said citizen’s fundamental right to carry firearms in public, under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This statute needs to be struck down as unconstitutional.

In addition, besides requiring a permit to carry, in order to protect the public from perhaps dangerous people from carrying firearms, there are other ways to protect the public. Indeed, if a person has no criminal record, the evidence suggests that they are not dangerous; but rather law abiding. Law abiding citizens should not have to obtain a permit to carry a pistol. This has historical support. Rather, evidence should first be required showing that they are too dangerous to be allowed to carry. The legislature could thus provide that all law abiding citizens can carry without a permit, until and after they are convicted of certain crimes showing dangerousness, for example, if a person is convicted of a crime involving felonious assault, then, after that evidence exists, then they could be prohibited from carrying in public. In this situation, no permit is required. Law abiding citizens would be allowed to carry in public. And, after a requisite conviction, then they would be prohibited from carrying. If then caught, they would be prosecuted. This would actually also relieve the State from a lot of administrative burden.

In contrast however, under the current statutory scheme, all law abiding citizens are subjected to criminal prosecution, being convicted of a gross misdemeanor or a felony, for simply exercising a fundamental, God given, inalienable, constitutionally protected right. The vast majority of millions of citizens should not be subjected to such an overbroad law.

Accordingly, there are lesser burdensome laws that can be enacted to achieve the compelling interest of protecting the public. Accordingly, the government cannot meet its burden of proof and the carry permit requirement must be struck down as unconstitutional. Again, in this case, the government’s burden is insurmountable.

[1] .            In 2015, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s carry permit requirement regulations were struck down as unconstitutional, eliminating the requirement to obtain a permit. Wikipedia, Constitutional Carry (Mar. 11, 2019)(citing a class action suit brought by “Damas de la Segunda Enmienda,” Ladies of the Second Amendment.

[2] .       The United States Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

[3] .       “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 (1868). “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 (1868). Our U.S. Constitution grants privileges and immunities to citizens of the United States, to which non-citizens are not entitled.

[4] .       The Minnesota legislature recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Minn. Stat. §624.714, Subd. 22 (2018).

[5] .       At the time of the promulgation of the Second Amendment, there were statutes that required citizens to own ammunition, and if they did not, they were fined. See below.

[6] .            It should be noted that the type of arms U.S. citizens should be allowed to bear should be determined by what the enemies of the U.S. would have: if our enemies have machine guns (or what have you), then obviously, in order to adequately defend the U.S., U.S. citizens should have machine guns.

[7] .       History shows that each persecuted the other (Catholics and Protestants), and some would say both were wrong.

[8] .             The use of the term “people” should be highlighted, as opposed to using the word army or soldier.

[9] .            That means that citizens would need weapons at least as powerful as those held by our government, since a purpose of the Second Amendment is to be able to deter against governmental tyranny. It therefore follows that type of weapons citizens are entitled to have is not governed by what existed 250 years ago. Rather, under the reasoning of the purpose of the Second Amendment, the type of weapons citizens must be allowed to have are those that would have firepower equivalent or greater than those held by our government today.

[10] .       The legislature of the State of Minnesota declared that review of statutes in section 624.714 are subject to the strict scrutiny test. Minn. Stat. §624.714, Subd. 22 (2018) (the terms of this section must be construed according to the compelling state interest test).

[11] .            The cases requiring a challenger to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a statute is unconstitutional are not applicable to the instant case. See Mitchell v. Steffen, 487 N.W.2d 896, 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)(quoting Eddleman v. Center Township of Marion County, 723 F. Supp. 85, 90 n.10 (S.D. Ind. 1989)).

[12] .       In addition to case law, the Minnesota Statute herein, explicitly provides that these provisions are to be evaluated under a strict scrutiny analysis. Minn. Stat. §624.714, subd. 22 (2018).

Second Amendment 

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 actually 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 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. Do they still teach this in schools? So, our rights to keep and bear arms, our Second Amendment rights, are extremely important.

Loss of gun rights and restoration 

Did you know that a conviction of just a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law will give you a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms for life?  Ms. Torgerson, Esq., wants to help you get your gun rights restored.

Did you know that conviction of a felony will now also cause a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms for the rest of your life?  Again, want to help you get your gun rights restored.

Ms. Torgerson, gun rights restoration attorney, has helped people win the restoration of their gun rights in at least 32 different counties throughout the State of Minnesota, and at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Not just 32 cases, but 32 different counties.  Her rate of success in this area is extremely high. Ms. Torgerson would like to help you win the restoration of your gun rights as well.

Carry permits and permits to purchase 

Ms. Torgerson also represents people in denials of applications for a permit to purchase, and denials of permits to carry, concealed carry, conceal and carry.

The government too often, erroneously denies people their gun rights.

Gun charges, weapons charges, representation 

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.  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 loves winning cases involving the restoration of one’s rights to possess firearms, a person’s Second Amendment rights.  She wants to help you too.  She wants to see citizens exercise their Second Amendment rights, their rights to keep and bear arms.  Ms. Torgerson has been working on cases involving constitutional rights since 1988; that’s about 29 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.

Please give Lynne Torgerson, Esq., a lawyer of excellence, a call today! (612) 339-5073!

Carry permit, carry and conceal 

A number of states in the U.S., as well as the federal government, have restricted and regulated gun ownership to a great extent. Conversely, more than half of the households in America own guns. The gun rights statutes in the state of Minnesota presents the individuals with the right to carry a gun or pistol in public places, provided they have the ‘permit to carry’ license. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, and these exceptions are posed by public places with sign boards which suggest prohibition of weapons and guns in that area. In a number of counties such as Hennepin, churches have the right to ban weapons and firearms from entering their premises which includes areas such as church parking lots.

Loss of gun rights 

Conviction of a criminal charge in the state of Minnesota can lead to very serious consequences, one of which is the loss of your constitutional rights such as right to vote and right to carry a concealed weapon. The Federal Gun Laws very clearly state that any individual who is convicted for crimes which led to imprisonment of one year or more, has no right to own, accept, sale, ship or transport weapons and ammunitions. A federal lifetime ban on the possession of a firearm can also follow a conviction for a misdemeanor domestic assault. There are also state law bans on possession of a firearm following a conviction of misdemeanor domestic assault, as well as other crimes, such as felonies. The primary way to lose your right to possess a firearm, under state and federal law, is a misdemeanor conviction of domestic assault, and/or, conviction of a felony.

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.

Getting Gun Rights Restored in Minnesota 

While it is a fact that getting gun rights reinstated in states like Minnesota may be difficult, an experienced Minnesota Gun Rights Attorney can certainly help you to get your gun rights reinstated through processes such as a petition to restore gun rights, expungement, restoration of rights, a pardon, and through setting aside the conviction. Ms. Torgerson has successfully handled such cases. She is ready to help you with yours.

A gun rights charge has several facets to it and a gun rights attorney with considerable experience in handling similar cases can help you get your gun rights reinstated. If you have lost your gun rights due to some unavoidable circumstance, it is highly recommended that you find a reputed Minnesota gun rights attorney as soon as possible.

A gun rights lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson can aid you in protecting your gun rights as she has over 26 years of experience in dealing with Minnesota gun rights cases. The right to possess a gun or a weapon is a very sensitive issue, and can lead to serious consequences if not dealt in the right way. It would not be wrong to say that a right approach and sensitivity plays a quintessential role in the success of such cases. Lynne Torgerson is a lawyer of repute and will help you to achieve your legal goals. Call now for legal help and assistance.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Second Amendment issue not addressed on appeal for failure to serve Attorney General 

In this appeal from the trial court’s order for protection, appellant argued that (1) the OFP’s requirement that he transfer his firearms violated his rights under the Second Amendment; and (2) he was denied due process when the trial court allowed respondent to seek a firearm restriction at the hearing despite not identifying that relief in her petition.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals declined to consider appellant’s Second Amendment challenge to the OFP statute because appellant did not provide notice to the Minnesota Attorney General and because the appellate record was insufficient for review of this issue.  Appeal dismissed.

Fostervold v. Monson, A19-0165, Kandiyohi County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Commentary:  This issue is a thorny one.  It is a thorny one because most lawyers and judges do not know the law in this area.  The law only requires that a party serve the Attorney General when a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute where it is a civil case and the State is not a party.  The State is supposed to defend attacks on the constitutionality of statutes, and in criminal cases, the State is a party, and is represented by the County or City Attorney.  However, many lawyers and judges erroneously believe that whenever a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute, they are required to serve the Attorney General.  In the above case, it was a civil case, and a party challenged the constitutionality of a statute, so that party was required to serve the Attorney General.

Was search warrant affidavit based on stale information?

Defendant was convicted of ineligible person in possession of a firearm in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota.  On appeal, he argued that the information in the application for a search warrant was stale.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that because a tip asserted that defendant was selling large quantities of narcotics, and, a search of garbage that produced evidence that field tested positive for cocaine was done 1 day before the search warrant was issued, the information supporting the search warrant was not stale.  Affirmed.

State v. Williams, A18-1432, Hennepin County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Contact Us Today For A Free Consultation 

Our Second Amendment Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson represents clients throughout the entire State of Minnesota.

Contact Second Amendment Lynne Torgerson today at 612-339-5073 for your free consultation.  Our law firm can help you with our qualified Weapons Charges Lawyer and gun rights restoration cases and carry permit appeals in Minnesota.