Victory: restore gun rights 112722

Minneapolis Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer, https://lynnetorgerson.com/2nd-amendment-rights/ Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Carver, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was now in his 60’s.  He was a high school graduate.  He obtained some higher education.  For a career, he worked in his family business.  Petitioner does not use drugs or alcohol.  Petitioner had one disqualifying conviction of record, a 19 year old felony harassment case.  He received a stay of imposition of sentence, whereby now the conviction is deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  Petitioner, as a child, had had positive experiences with firearms with his father.  He would also shovel other people’s driveways and pull people’s vehicles out of ditches, for no remuneration. 

Finding good cause, the Carver County District Court Judge restored Ms. Torgerson’s client’s Second Amendment rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration https://lynnetorgerson.com/2nd-amendment-rights/ case out of the County of Isanti, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had lost his gun rights when he was a teenager of about 18 years old,  because he followed his girlfriend to another man’s house, entered the house, and punched the man, resulting in bruising.  Surprisingly, this will cause a felony burglary conviction.  At the time of the petition to restore, Mr. Torgerson’s client was a high school graduate, the father of 3 children, was gainfully employed, and had not had a new conviction for 8 years.  He also wanted to join his Dad and friends in hunting, and be able to engage in self defense should the need arise.  Finding good cause, the Court granted his petition to restore his gun rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun Rights Restoration Victory

Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won another case out of the County of Carver, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had had some serious cases as a juvenile, it appears, in connection with his diagnosis of some level of autism.  This caused him to lose his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms for life.  In an approximate 3 year period, he was adjudicated guilty of assault, disorderly conduct, threats of violence, counterfeit bills, burglary.  Since being a child, he had become an adult, graduated from high school, obtained some higher education, been gainfully employed with the same employer for 9 year, gotten married, was raising 4 children, and had no further serious conviction.  Finding good cause, the Carver County District Court Judge restored Ms. Torgerson’s client’s Second Amendment rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Gun rights, Second Amendment rights, restoration in Minnesota

PETITION TO RESTORE SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson is an expert in getting people’s Second Amendment rights restored.  She has won gun rights cases in 36 different counties in the State of Minnesota, and, at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  These cases are published.  You cannot find another lawyer with such published successes.

In Minnesota, a person loses their Second Amendment rights, their gun rights, when they are convicted of a felony crime of violence.  Under the Second Amendment, American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  “Keep” means to possess, and “bear” means to carry, and to carry means, in public. 

Then, the Minnesota legislature essentially took about 25 crimes and labeled them crimes of violence, even if they did not involve violence.  The Minnesota legislature declared that people convicted of these crimes indicates dangerousness and therefore their gun rights should be revoked for life.  Some examples of felony crimes of violencehttps://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/624.712#stat.624.712.5 include possession of methamphetamine, murder, felony assault, felony criminal sexual conduct, robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, promotion of prostitution, felony malicious punishment of a child, felony commission of a crime while wearing a bullet resistant vest, felony theft of a firearm, arson, burglary, riot, terroristic threats and threats of violence. 

In the very same statute however, the legislature provided that a person could bring a petition to restore their gun rights, their Second Amendment rights.  The statute, 609.165, set up a two prong test.  First, the person must have been released from physical confinement.  Second, the person must establish good cause.  Good cause has pretty much been interpreted as maturity and lack of dangerousness.  Which, indeed, makes sense:  if the State took away someone’s rights because their conviction indicated dangerousness, if they prove lack of dangerousness, they should restore their gun rights.

A general rule of thumb for gauging likelihood of success is:  the longer it has been with no criminal conviction, the less serious the convictions, and the fewer number of convictions, the greater likelihood that a petition for restoration of gun rights will be granted.

When a person has been convicted of a felony crime of violence under Minnesota law, they are barred for life under both Minnesota state law, and, federal law.  Federal law provides that if a state takes away a person’s gun rights, and then restores them, that then the federal authorities are required to remove the federal prohibition. 

RESTORATION OF GUN RIGHTS VIA EXPUNGEMENT

If a person is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, the person’s gun rights under Minnesota law are generally speaking, revoked for 3 years.  Under federal law however, the person’s gun rights are revoked for life.  However, the federal statute also states that if a person obtains an expungement, that then, the federal authorities are required to remove the lifetime prohibition.  So, if a person gets an expungement of a misdemeanor domestic assault conviction, this should remove the federal prohibition, and, make them legal under both state and federal law.

Recently however, the FBI has taken the position that Minnesota expungements are not good enough, in its opinion.  The FBI should lose this argument, as it is absurd.  Without any judicial opinion, the FBI declared all Minnesota expungements insufficient to restore a person’s gun rights.  The FBI’s position essentially is that because Minnesota expungement doesn’t destroy all the criminal records, that therefore, the expungement isn’t good enough.  The FBI, via its opinion, eliminated restoration of gun rights in the entire State of Minnesota via expungements.  Again, this argument should fail.  The statute on construction of laws provides that a statute cannot be construed to render an absurdity.  Well, virtually every state in the Union only seals records, and does not destroy them.  So, the FBI’s opinion essentially eliminates restoration of gun rights via expungement throughout our entire country.  That is absurd.  Congress would not enact a statute saying a person’s gun rights should be restored if they get an expungement, and then provide that no expungement in the entire United States is good enough. Right?  That is absurd.  The FBI’s opinion renders the federal statute a nullity.  And yes, that is absurd.  Hence, the FBI’s opinion should fail.

Minnesota gun rights restoration lawyer expert Lynne Torgerson is currently in the process of putting together a case on this very issue, to initially challenge the FBI’s opinion on this statute.  Ms. Torgerson believes that her client will prevail, and that the FBI’s absurd opinion will lose.  This is a very important issue, and probably affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions of peoples’ gun rights.  It appears that the FBI is simply very anti Second Amendment.

Do not believe or trust the lawyers who tell you . . . You cannot get your gun rights restored via an expungement.  This has NEVER been decided in a federal court, and, it is imply the absurd, bad, invalid, wrongful opinion of the FBI.  It appears that these supposed gun rights lawyers are actually siding with the anti Second Amendment camp and should not be trusted.  They say that you have to get a “set aside.”  Well, Minnesota does not even have a procedure in the entire State to obtain a “set aside.”  There is no such thing.  Again, bad, untrustworthy advice.

Federal law says in black and white that if you obtain an expungement, that then, the federal prohibition is supposed to be removed.  Do not let the FBI get away with this.  Challenge this absurd opinion in federal court. 

Lynne Torgerson will shortly be filing such a case, and, she expects to win.  Wish her good luck!

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson, a lawyer of excellence 30 years, can represent you on Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration cases.  She supports the Second Amendment.  She wants to help you.  She is an expert in her field.  She knows what she is doing, and, does it well.  For gun rights restoration, call Best Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson at (612) 339-5073.

Threats violence child endangerment 312

Top Assault Attorney Minneapolis Minnesota

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient for defendant’s threats of violence conviction?

Defendant was convicted of threats of violence against his daughter, and, his son.  Defendant was also convicted of child endangerment against his daughter, and, his son.  Defendant was sentenced on both the threats of violence convictions and child endangerment convictions.  Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences.  On appeal, defendant argued that (1) his convictions for threats of violence must be reversed on the grounds of  insufficient evidence; and (2) that his convictions for threats of violence and child endangerment as to his two children arose out of single behavioral incident, and that therefore, the child endangerment sentences must be vacated under Minnesota Statute §609.035.

Section 609.035 of the Minnesota Statutes is known as the double jeopardy statute.  Generally, it prevents a defendant from being punished twice for the same crime.

Historically, the crime of “threats of violence,” was called “terroristic threats.”  More recently, there has been an affirmative effort to re-name this crime “threats of violence,” so that people charged or convicted of this crime will not be confused with having engaged in terrorism related criminal activity.  Generally speaking, threats of violence can be a threat to commit a crime of violence, or, a threat made in disregard of this risk of causing a person terror.

Noting that defendant threatened to shoot the gas meter and mentioned a bomb, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient for threats of violence against his daughter, but given the lack of evidence as to what his four hear old son heard, said conviction must be vacated.  Further, the threats of violence and child endangerment offenses arose out of single behavioral incident whereby the latter conviction against his daughter must be vacated.

State v. Bolster, A21-0373, Dakota County.

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

Interference with privacy while sleeping 314

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant did not violate the interference with privacy statute when he used his phone to video his girlfriend naked without her consent?

The defendant used his cell phone to videotape his girlfriend while naked without her consent.  Defendant admitted to using his cell hone to record a woman while she was naked in her bed without her consent, and knowing that she likely would not have consented.  He was convicted of violating the interference with privacy statute, §609.746, subd. 1(b).  He appealed.  The question in this appeal was not whether defendant’s conduct was wrong, but instead, whether the statute defendant was found guilty of violating, Minnesota Statute secion 609.746, subdivision 1 (b), covers his conduct.  More specifically, whether the statutory requirement that an indvididual “use[] any device for . . . reocrding . . . through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another” is satisfied when a person surreptitiously records another person in the same room with a cell phone camera.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that defendant did not violate the statute when he used a cell phone camera to record a woman without her consent while in the same room with her, because it did not meet the statutory requirement of using a recording device through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling.

Commentary:  A very interesting case.  So, Ladies and gentlemen beware!  Although clearly wrong, under this case, a person can secretly videotape you with their cell phone, when you are not dressed, and not be violating this statute.  Although generally we definitely have way too many laws, rules, and criminal laws, it appears that a statute is needed criminalizing secret videotaping of another, without their consent, when they are naked.

State v. McReynolds, A20-1435, Minnesota Supreme Court.

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

Pornography between children juveniles criminality 544

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether pornography between children juveniles violates the law?

Juvenile defendant was adjudicated delinquent for disseminating and attempting to aid and abet the dissemination of pornographic work, fifth degree criminal sexual conduct, and indecent exposure.  Juvenile child defendant had sent multiple nude pictures of himself to a 13 years old victim, and asked the victim to send nude pictures of herself.  Juvenile defendant had done so via Snapchat.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that (1) the pornographic work statute does not prohibit the act of a juvenile disseminating a pornographic picture of themselves; and therefore the two (2) dissemination of pornographic work adjudications should be reversed; (2) the trial court erred by failing to obtain juvenile defendant’s person waiver of his right to testify and, therefore, all adjudications should be reversed; (3) the trial court erred by ordering juvenile defendant to comply with the predatory offender registration statute; and (4) the trial court erred by entering adjudications for 5th degree criminal sexual conduct and an included offense of indecent exposure, and therefore, one adjudication should be reversed.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that (1) the plain language of the pornographic work statute prohibits juveniles from creating and sending pornographic work of themselves; (2) the trial court did not err by failing to obtain juvenile defendant’s personal waiver of his right to testify; (3) ordering juvenile defendant to comply with the predatory offender registration statute was proper; (4) because indecent exposure is an included offense of 5th degree criminal sexual conduct, the trial court erred by entering adjudications for both offenses.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

In re Welfare of J.C.L., A21-1018, Redwood County.

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

Commentary:

In this case the juvenile defendant raised an interesting legal issue:  whether the criminal child pornographic work statute applied to child engaging in sending pornographic work to each other.

In Minnesota, the law distinguishes between crimes that are committed by children versus adults.  There is a general rule that crimes committed by children should be handled in the best interests of child.  In contrast, for crimes committed by adults, there are four (4) primary purposes of the law:  (1) to punish; (2) to deter people from committing crimes; (2) to rehabilitate, so that people will not continue to commit crimes; (3) to incapacitate, whereby people are locked up in a prison, so that they are not able to commit crimes.  In addition, another policy of juvenile law is that the records of offenses of juveniles are confidential, so that mistakes made by children do not haunt them into their adult lives.

A typical child pornography case involves an adult possessing child pornography.  In the State courts, these cases are usually punished by sentencing the defendant to prison for a term of years.  In federal court, the sentences are typically much longer, usually running 20 to 40 years.

So, in this case, the people involved, both the offender, and the victim, were children.  So, the juvenile defendant raised the issue of whether the legislature actually intended the child pornography criminal statute to be applied against children.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that it did.  It is probably likely that this case will be appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, in order to finally determine the issue.

Knowledge of prohibited person status 597

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Was there sufficient evidence to establish that defendant knew he was a prohibited person?    

Defendant was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.  He appealed.  On appeal, he argued that he did not know he was a prohibited person.  There was sufficient evidence that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm while he was subject to a no contact order involving an intimate partner.  Accordingly, defendant qualified as a prohibited person under the statute.  Affirmed.

This is a federal case.   There are two jurisdictions where a person can be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.  The first is in State court.  This is the most common.  The second is federal court.  The sentences in federal court for crimes is usually much more severe than in state court.

Interestingly in this case, defendant had not been previously convicted of a felony, where a person becomes prohibited from possessing firearms.  Herein, in an unusual case, defendant became prohibited from possessing firearms because he was subject to a no contact order.  The case does not specify whether it was a no contact order in a criminal case, a DANCO, which is a domestic assault no contact order, a harassment restraining order, or an order for protection.  In Minnesota, if a person violates a DANCO, a domestic assault no contact order, which was issued in a State court, then a new criminal charge can be brought against a defendant, in addition to whatever charges the defendant was facing in the original criminal case.  Generally, under federal law, when a person is subject to an order for protection, which involves a romantic partner, then a person becomes prohibited from possessing a firearm.  This is what happened in this case.  Then, evidently, the law required that it be proven that defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm because of the issuance of a no contact order.

In this case, defendant was originally charged criminal with being a prohibited person in unlawful possession of a firearm.  The original charges were brought in the trial court.  In federal court, the trial court is called a District Court.  In State court, the trial court is just called a trial court.  In the federal court system, there are three levels of courts.  The first is the District Court.  The next level in Minnesota is the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The next final level is the United States Supreme Court.  The District Court is the level where a trial to a jury would occur, and, where guilt or innocence is determined.  If a person is convicted by a jury, and if a defendant does not believe the conviction is valid for some reason, the the defendant can appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  That is what the defendant did in this case.  He appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  As for attorney fees, there would be attorney fees charged at the District Court level.  And, if a person wanted to appeal, there would be additional attorney fees charged for an appeal.  In this case, defendant argued that the evidence was sufficient to prove he had knowledge of his prohibited status.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case concluded that the defendant did know of his prohibited status, and, that the government proved up that evidence.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals therefore upheld defendant’s conviction.

United States v. Marin, 21-1016, Benton, J.  Appealed from United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

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

Methamphetamine lab restitution clean up 355

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether a District Court has the authority to order restitution for the clean up costs for a methamphetamine lab?    

Defendant was convicted of possession and manufacturing of methamphetamine.

Manufacturing of methamphetamine typically involves a location where a defendant makes methamphetamine.  Making methamphetamine involves purchasing various chemicals and then  heating and cooking them, whereby they develop into methamphetamine.  They are then usually sold in large amounts to a middle person, who then sells them to a lower person, which lower person then sells them to individual users.  The place of manufacture or cooking of methamphetamine can usually be rather dangerous, and  there is is usually a risk of the building in which they are cooked blowing up.  Also, the cooking process can leave a high amount of toxic chemicals in the air and at the location, which thereafter needs sensitive and extensive clean up.  Therefore, to clean up a former methamphetamine lab can be expensive.  Hence, the issue of restitution can arise in a criminal case involving the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Defendant appealed his sentence.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a District Court has the authority to order restitution for the clean up costs for a methamphetamine lab.

The issue of restitution is typically determined after conviction and sentencing.  The State’s prosecutor, in Minnesota, known as the County Attorney, will file a request for restitution.  The State will often say the amount of restitution it is seeking the the motion seeking restitution.  The defendant then has these opportunity to challenge the amount of restitution sought.  If the amount is not challenged, then usually the amount of restitution becomes part of the defendant’s conditions of probation:  he is given an allotted amount of time to pay the restitution owed.  If the defendant challenges the amount sought by the State, then the Court will hold a contested restitution hearing to determine the amount of restitution the defendant will be ordered to pay.

United States v. Sarchett, 21-3803, per curiam.  Appealed from United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

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

Threats assault federal official 220

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court did not err in its sentence of defendant on threats to assault and murder a federal official?   

Defendant pleaded guilty to threatening to assault and murder a federal official in federal court.  It may be noted that generally speaking, the more serious cases are prosecuted in federal court; additionally, the sentences in federal court are generally much longer than those in state court.  He was sentenced.  Defendant appealed his sentence.  Defendant argued his sentence and special conditions of supervised release were substantively unreasonable.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the above Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable given defendant’s persistent threats, and, his efforts to recruit others to commit murders.  Additionally, the two special conditions ofrequiring that he participate in a substance abuse program, and, that he receive mental health treatment, were proper, because the record adequately supported the conditions.  A general rule of thumb is that pursuant to due process of law, conditions of a sentence should be related to the underlying criminal conduct.  Additionally, if there are aggravating circumstances in a case, that will support a longer prison sentence.  Affirmed.

United States v. Jackson, 21-1744, per curiam.  Appealed from United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

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