What you don’t know about permit to carry
Beau Doboszenski, Owner/Lead Instructor
Originally published September 6th, 2018
On Saturday, September 15th we’ll be hosting the first DMT Permit to Carry course in more than a year. If you’ve got a Permit that is up for renewal in the next year, it’s the perfect time to enroll for the required re-qualification. Or if you’ve never had a Permit and you’re ready to jump in, or have a friend or loved one who is looking to take the plunge, DMT’s Permit to Carry is a truly unique experience in the industry.
It’s the only class that includes complete training in Situational Awareness, 3 hours of hands-on foundational firearms training, and a live fire session that includes real instruction not just simply blowing ammo to qualify. And finally, If you’ve read any of our material, you’ll know that we provide the best foundation possible to start the journey of carrying a firearm for personal security.
This course is ideal for a complete beginner, though if you’ve been carrying for years and just need a re-certification, we’ll provide you with value, instruction, and guaranteed new information that you won’t find at a run-of-the mill permit to carry course.
Aside from proving you can handle a firearm, what’s the point of the Permit to Carry course? Much of it is about the law. In my decade plus of professional firearms instruction, I’ve heard some crazy opinions on what constitutes justifiable self-defense and what “the law” says. Having spent time with one of the authors of the Minnesota permit to carry law and a self-defense legal expert, I’ve developed a radically different interpretation of what this permit and self-defense really means in our legal system. This is not a message you’re not likely to hear anywhere else, though I incorporate it into the Permit to Carry coursework. Here’s an overview for those who can’t join us on September 15th.
1. The statute law is meaningless
Minnesota’s self-defense statute law can be found under 609.065 and states:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
While this might seem clear, in fact it’s far from it. What is the definition of “reasonable?” Who decides whether or not your actions were, in fact, “reasonable?” Were you really exposed to “great bodily harm or death?” Who decides this? And which potential felonies qualify for prevention with the use of “intentional life taking?”
Statutes are written in this way to give maximum range to the courts and prosecutors. It allows them a huge amount of flexibility to present their case in almost an unlimited number of ways. This forces us as defenders to ensure we did everything we could to meet the standard set forth in previous cases - not in the statute itself. This is what we at DMT call The Foundational Legal Perspective.
In order to avoid prosecution or conviction, you must be seen by the prosecutor or jury as:
An unwilling participant, absent of any aggression or provocation
The force you used was necessary and that no lesser force would do
You had no way to retreat, safely
You were in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death or that of another
That you were reasonable in the grounds for your fear
Acting in this manner is VERY different than simply knowing the statute law, and it could lead to the difference between an acquittal or declaration of guilt.
2. Whether law enforcement calls it self-defense is meaningless
Recently in Florida, a man got into a verbal altercation with a woman outside a gas station. The woman’s male partner came out of the gas station and moved aggressively into the fracas, pushing the first man to the ground. The first man, more advanced in age than the woman’s male partner, felt trapped on the ground. He retrieved his firearm and discharged one round in the second male’s chest, killing him.
Law Enforcement in the area, based on the State of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Statutes, cleared the older male on grounds of self-defense. That didn’t halt the prosecutor’s office in Florida for even a minute, and they decided to prosecute the first male anyway.
Law Enforcement has a specific and tough job, but that doesn’t include deciding what is or isn’t a crime. Their job is to enforce laws to a certain extent (traffic violations, securing the scenes of violent crime, apprehending suspected criminals as possible), and to present evidence of a crime. The real job of “prosecuting crimes” belongs to District Attorneys and Prosecutors.
Law Enforcement might gather information and make a determination that prosecution isn’t necessary, however the prosecutor can simply overrule them and charge the suspect anyway. And contrarily, the Law Enforcement may clearly see the crime and have all the evidence to lock that suspect up, and prosecutors can ignore it and decide not to press charges. “Definitive” and “clear” are two words that are antithetical to our legal system. It’s much foggier than that.
3. There is no “get out of jail free” strategy
But Beau, what if I acted this way in this hypothetical scenario?
But if I took X strategy, that would be “legal” right?
I get these kinds of “get out of jail free” questions often. It’s always tough to watch the expression on my student’s faces when I give my answer: “Maybe.”
We can use the Foundational Legal Perspective for a reasonable hypothetical look into what a prosecutor might do, but there is zero guarantee that even following the law to the letter will prevent prosecution. My good friend John Caile, who co-authored the Minnesota Permit to Carry law, always said in his legal classes: “And the jury will decide.”
4. Just because your lawyer says: “It’s self-defense” doesn’t mean you’ll win in court
An outside guest came to a DMT scenario training some time back. The scenario was a car theft scene. I played the thief, scoping out the defender’s car. This student came up to the car as I approached him from the passenger side. “Hey, nice car man!” I said, starting to walk around to his side. He scurried quickly to the other side, keeping the car between him and me. So far, so good.
I muttered some more about the features of the car, sort of moving left and right between the driver’s door and the front quarter panel. The defender walked opposite my moves, keeping the car between us, while telling me to go away.
As this is a scenario, I wouldn’t take no for an answer. What I was really looking for was to see him to run away up the street. When it became clear he wouldn’t do that, I pulled out a screwdriver and mock forced open the door.
Now the defender was yelling, panicked. He pulled his SIM gun. I ignored him, getting into the driver’s seat, using the screwdriver to pretend bump start the car. That’s when I heard the shots and felt the impacts. Two SIM rounds were fired through the open moonroof right onto my head. I stopped the scenario.
When I asked him what the heck was that? He said: “You were threatening my life.” I looked at him, stunned: “I was stealing your car.” He looked at me absolutely defiantly and said: “Well, my lawyer will say that it was self-defense.”
Your lawyer can say all kinds of stuff, but juries generally don’t favor suspects who shoot a non-threatening thief in the back of the head from a safe position.
5. No, I don’t care what the sign says, or whether it’s a “legal” sign
As an instructor, I simply cannot fathom is how much time and detail other Minnesota Permit to Carry instructors often spend on what does or does not constitute a legal “no guns allowed on premises” sign.
Really. I’ve seen instructors spend 30 minutes or more describing proper legal positioning of the sign, text size, font, and on and on and on.
Look, this is probably one of the least important factors in carrying a concealed firearm in Minnesota. There are places you simply cannot carry, like government chambers, courthouses, K-12 schools, etc. Any other location may choose to post a sign, but the sign has zero force of law in Minnesota. Ignoring the sign does not constitute a crime; it’s only a crime when you’re asked to leave and you don’t, and that’s trespassing.
Ready for the simple solution? Know where you absolutely cannot carry a firearm and don’t carry there. Everywhere else, use your best judgment, and keep the darn thing concealed properly. If for some reason you arrive somewhere that doesn’t want you to have a firearm, you don’t have to go in. If you enter and they ask you to leave, simply leave, and express your disappointment with their policy and that you won’t be patronizing their establishment again.
Done. See, no 30 minute lecture on signs necessary, and you don’t even have to worry about the placement or font! The DMT Permit to Carry course focuses on matters that are much more critical to safely carrying a firearm for self-defense. If your state is different, act accordingly to the laws prescribed in your location. If you don't know your state's laws on this, Handgunlaw.us is a great and quick resource. I always check this site when I'm traveling too, so I know, before I arrive, what the state laws on carry are.
6. Yes, the greater context DOES MATTER
Some years back, as a man approached his car, three other men came at him. One had a bat, another a chain, another only his fists. His yelling at them to stop did not halt them, so the man pulled his firearm and started shooting.
So, self-defense?
Actually no. Why? Because I didn’t tell you the full story. The man going to his car had just come from a bar where his ex-girlfriend was a server. He and the girlfriend had gotten into an argument and the man had punched her, knocking her out. The three other men coming after him were the bouncers from that bar, looking to restrain the first man until Law Enforcement arrived.
Your self-defense argument does not start the moment you feel “threatened.” The greater context of the situation matters. According to the Foundational Legal Perspective, the first man was in no way an “unwilling participant absent of any aggression or provocation.” You could argue quite clearly that the first man actually started the altercation.
Once in a Permit to Carry class, an attender argued he should be able to shoot the “Nazi” across the street from him at a protest rally because they were a "threat." Another attender argued that giving someone the finger is “protected free speech” and if someone doesn’t like it and starts a fight, well he can use lethal force. In both cases, this is wrong. When you were a child and you got into a fight with your sibling and you yelled: “They started it!” what did your parents say? Probably something like, “I don’t care who started it.” This is even MORE true with the justice system. Both parties involved in an altercation CAN BE CHARGED with crimes!
This is why a good deterrence system and situational awareness system are so important. You must do everything in your power to avoid the conflict from the get go, or deter the threat so it does not come to violence, or if you do have to resort to violence, using only necessary force when no lesser force would do.
This is just a glimpse of the critical info you should know if you’re going to carry for self-defense. Don’t go to a second rate Permit to Carry course. You, as a citizen defender, MUST TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. Sign up for DMT’s Permit to Carry course today.