Whether the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for gun rights restoration?

Petitioner brought a petition to restore his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  The trial court denied his petition.  Petitioner appealed.  On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to show good cause to restore his gun rights.  For gun rights restoration, a petitioner has to show two factors.  First, petitioner must show that he is no longer in physical confinement.  This usually is not an issue.  The second factor is good cause.  The test for good cause is primarily whether the evidence shows that petitioner is not dangerous.

The Minnesota legislature essentially took 25 crimes and labeled them as “crimes of violence.”  The legislature declared that people convicted of these crimes indicates dangerousness and thereby provided that said persons should lose their gun rights for life.  In the very same statute however, the legislature provided for a petition to restore gun rights.  It would make sense that if the law provided that a person’s gun rights should be taken away because the evidence indicates dangerousness, that if the person subsequently becomes a law abiding citizen and the evidence shows a lack of dangerousness, that the person’s gun rights should be restored.

In the instant case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the public safety concerns outweighed Petitioner’s private interests.

State v. Ramirez, A21-0073, Brown County.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was NOT attorney of record in this case.

Recommended Posts