Minnesota knife law question

[MilliePop]

Hey guys what are the knife laws for MN, especially the metro area?
I read somewhere it is legal to carry under 4". Concealed or not? etc..

Any and all advice and input is welcomed and appreciated. Thanks in advance fellas.

 

[glistam]

Minnesota at the state level has very vague laws regarding knives, but are as follows (truncated for simplicity):

"Dangerous weapon" means...any device designed as a weapon and
capable of producing death or great bodily harm.

It then states that it is illegal to:

possesses any other dangerous article or substance
for the purpose of being used unlawfully as a weapon
against another...

I know, that's pretty vague. It basically means that knives that are "designed as weapons" are likely to be considered illegal, but knives designed as "tools" are not. So you can have swiss army knife, or a simple lock-back, but not say a Applegate-Fairbairn Combat Folder.

And MN has no limits based on age OR the length of the blade per se. Now the large cities, that's another matter.

Getting into the lawyerin', I base the above statement on caselaw from you state:

-------------------
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.A.D., Child. (2001)
"On that day, C.A.D. fought with another student, but the fight did not involve the knife, which school authorities ultimately recovered. The knife blade is three and one-quarter inches long, single edged, and locks in the open position. The state charged respondent with possession of a dangerous weapon on school property"
"because the parties stipulated that respondent did not use or intend to use the buck knife in this case in a manner calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm, the only question before us is whether, as a matter of law, the buck knife was "designed" as a weapon capable of producing death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6."
"The knife in this case appears to be of the type commonly sold by persons engaging in outdoor recreation and there is no evidence that it is either marketed or primarily used as a dangerous weapon. While there is no conceivable reason for this knife to be present on school grounds, this fact alone is not sufficient to allow us to conclude that the buck knife was designed as a weapon."
Having determined that the buck knife is not designed as a dangerous weapon, and absent evidence of actual or intended use as a dangerous weapon, we cannot conclude that the buck knife is a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6. Nothing in the statutory scheme prevents school districts from enacting their own policies to prohibit objects, including knives, on their premises. However, we decline to extend the statutory definition of dangerous weapon, which in turn supports a felony possession charge under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1d(a), beyond the scope enunciated by the Minnesota Legislature.

Affirmed.

-----------
The sum up? The charges against boy were dismissed, and the high court upheld. Note it is the State's burden, not yours, to prove it is "designed as weapon" (per In the Matter of the Welfare of: P.W.F., Child. 2001).,

I hope this answers your question. I can explain certain parts in more detail if you want.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

only restriction is no automatics statewide. The twin cities has its own restrictions, but I don't know what they are. Cops there also don't have a single clue, so you will have to find out from the attorney general. (A guy I know had a bunch of nitwit cops trying to declare a Camillus heat illegal- measuring and remeasuring and comparing it with their hands. . . They failed.)

 

[glistam]

Got some more info for your major cities:

Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 393.10:
"Weapon" does not include (1) except when used as a weapon, a folding knife with a blade of four (4) inches or less in length, measured in a straight line from the point to the handle;

So that explains where you heard 4" from.

Saint Paul Code of Ordinances, Chapter 225:
"Concealed manner shall mean having the object on the person in such a manner so that it is not completely visible to any other person. Having a knife in a sheath shall be considered as having the knife concealed, irrespective of position of the sheath on the person."

"Knife shall mean dirk, dagger, stiletto, switchblade knife, spring blade knife, push button knife, a folding knife with a blade in excess of four (4) inches, a machete, a bayonet, or any fixed-blade knife, carried in a concealed manner or within reach of any person in a motor vehicle."

"(a) No person shall keep, carry or have in his possession on any public street or being a trespasser upon the premises of another or in a public place in the city any military-type weapon, or any assault weapon, or any stolen weapon, or any knife, except military personnel or peace officers engaged in the course of their duties, unless he holds a permit to possess the same as collector's item or for use in officially recognized competition." Please note that small knives are not actually "knives" when defined by law stated above

Rat of course makes a valid point. LEOs sure as hell ain't lawyers, so always be discreet.

 

[mp510]

Here is another MN case; (my commentary in blue) (emphasis in red added by me)

Background, from the only case law presented:

On Monday, November 2, 1998 the lead teacher of the school, Waneta Hord, and several students conducted a routine contraband search. A student brought a coat to Hord reporting a knife in the coat pocket. Hord brought the coat into the nearest classroom, displayed the coat and asked who owned it. Appellant immediately identified the coat as his but when asked by Hord what was in the coat pocket, he said that he did not know. Hord told him that a knife was found in his pocket and removed a folding knife with a four-inch blade. Appellant responded, “Oh man, I forgot to take it out, I was whittling this weekend.” In accordance with school procedure upon finding serious contraband, Hord called the police and retained possession of the knife until the police confiscated it.

Anoka County Police Sergeant Hammes responded to the call from the school and after investigation appellant was charged with violating Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1d, which makes possession of a dangerous weapon on school property a felony level offense. At trial, Hord testified that when she asked who owned the jacket, appellant immediately responded “I do” and was very cooperative throughout all of her questioning. She also testified that when she pulled the knife out and appellant said he had been whittling, his reaction was “spontaneous” and “believable.” Sergeant Hammes testified that appellant admitted that the knife was his, and that the day before he had been whittling with the knife *804 and had put it in his coat pocket but forgot to take it out. Appellant also told Sergeant Hammes that before coming to school on Monday he patted himself down but missed the knife. Appellant's mother told the court that appellant had on a “double jacket” that morning so even though he patted himself down, he could not feel the knife. A probation officer also told the court there was no evidence that appellant brought the knife to school to get into a fight. The court concluded, “I don't know that I believe that [appellant] was whittling. I believe he brought it accidentally.”

After testimony from Horn and Hammes appellant moved for a directed verdict,FN2 arguing that any reasonable interpretation of section 609.66, subd. 1d, would require appellant to know that the knife was in his coat pocket and that general intent required knowledge of possession. The prosecutor responded that the statute does not require knowledge or intent because it creates a strict liability crime-the state need only show appellant possessed a dangerous weapon on school grounds.

In Minnesota, the distinction between strict liability crimes and those requiring a mens rea has been recognized in both our case law and statutes; for example and relevant here, is Minn.Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9 (1998), providing definitions for chapter 609 offenses:

(1) When criminal intent is an element of a crime in this chapter, such intent is indicated by the term “intentionally,” the phrase “with intent to,” the phrase “with intent that,” or some form of the verbs “know” or “believe.”

(2) “Know” requires only that the actor believes that the specified fact exists.

(3) “Intentionally” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result. In addition * * * the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make the actor's conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word “intentionally.”

(4) “With intent to” or “with intent that” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result.

Minn.Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9. While we have not yet ruled whether under this statute a chapter 609 offense must be interpreted as a strict liability crime where it contains no language indicating intent or knowledge, in several opinions we have ruled on whether mere “possession” in various contexts requires a mens rea. In State v. Siirila, we affirmed a conviction under Minn.Stat. § 618.02 (1969), which stated “it shall be unlawful for any person to * * * possess * * * any narcotic drug” where appellants had an unusable quantity of marijuana. 292 Minn. 1, 10, 193 N.W.2d 467, 473 (1971). We observed that the legislature had reduced the crime of possession of a small amount of marijuana from a felony to a gross misdemeanor, see id. at 7, 193 N.W.2d at 471, and concluded

the inference is permissible that, marijuana having been found in a jacket shown to belong to defendant and to have been worn by him, whatever was in the jacket was there with his knowledge. The element of knowledge need not be proved from direct testimony, but may be shown by circumstantial evidence.

Id. at 10, 193 N.W.2d at 473. Later, in State v. Florine, we held that the defendant was guilty under Minn.Stat. § 152.09, subd. 1(2) (1974), of the felony offense of unlawful possession of cocaine, but noted “to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the state must prove that defendant consciously possessed * * * the substance and that defendant*808 had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” 303 Minn. 103, 104, 226 N.W.2d 609, 610 (1975).

Again in State v. Strong, we held that Minn.Stat. § 243.55 (1978 & Supp.1979), which provided “[a]ny person who brings * * * into any state correctional facility * * * any firearms, weapons or explosives of any kind * * * shall be guilty of a felony” required the state to show that the defendant had knowledge of possession of the offensive item. 294 N.W.2d 319, 320 n. 1 (Minn.1980). Because this was not a chapter 609 offense, we specifically declined to address whether section 609.02 cited above dispensed with proof of a mens rea in a chapter 609 offense absent words of intent. See id. at 320. We did observe however, that “most commentators have argued that the legislature should never use strict liability for crimes carrying a sentence of imprisonment and the moral condemnation going with such crimes.” Id. (citing Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, § 31 at 218, 223 (1972)). We concluded:

We see no reason why the element of scienter should be dispensed with in this situation and we are not convinced that the legislature intended to do so, any more than it intended to dispense with the requirement of scienter when it enacted the penalties for felonious possession of controlled substances.

Id.

From the actual opinion:

FN14. We express a note of concern regarding the court of appeals' comment that the statute was a strict liability offense because of the mild penalty imposed on appellant. The fact that appellant received a light sentence is of no consequence in the determination of whether mens rea is required under the statute because obviously the state's burden of proof of guilt cannot be determined by the level of sentence the trial court later imposes.

Thus we conclude that in light of our jurisprudential history requiring clear legislative intent to dispense with proof of mens rea and our heightened concern when it relates to felony level crimes, and because we believe the nature of the weapon here-a knife-was not so inherently dangerous that appellant should be on notice that mere possession would be a crime, respondent was required to prove that appellant knew he possessed the knife on school property as an element of the section 609.66, subd. 1d, offense charged. FN15

FN15. The special concurrence obviously misreads and overstates the majority holding when it suggests that we are creating a new standard requiring the legislature to explicitly state its intent to create strict liability offenses in all felony level crimes.

We reverse the court of appeals decision and remand to the trial court to determine whether appellant had knowledge of possession of the knife while on school property.

Reversed.

In re the Welfare of CRM has very little to do with whether or not the knife itself was a dangerous weapon, but rather with whether or not the dangerous weapon statute was one of strict liability or one in which mens rea was applicable. If you note, the Minn. Supreme Court did reverse the verdict, and remanded the case back to the court of original jurisdiction, for retrial- presumably to apply mens rea- as to whether he was knowingly carrying the weapon. I also found the not such a dangerous weapon comment (I highlighted it) interesting. Would they have considered the knife a dangerous weapon at all in a less secure situation (not a school) setting? I wonder....

From the wording of the statute, it is clear that there is an intentional levelof ambiguity applied, leaving much up to LE and judicial interpretation.
[ /COLOR]

 

[BillyHudak]

I live in Minnesota and was wondering the same thing..
If ya do carry a knife and think it might be illegal just make sure you never have any contact with the police and you should be alright..
I once knew a guy that got arrested for poking another guy in the ear with a toothpick.