Firearm Regulation and Cities

Information Memo

Published: September 1, 2026

View the model policy used in this discussion.

This content conveys general information. Do not use it as a substitute for legal advice; consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.

Regulation in general

Federal law

The federal government’s ability to regulate firearms comes largely from the commerce clause of the Constitution and the fact that all guns have likely traveled interstate. One significant limitation on federal gun control is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment states “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.”

In a 2008 opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment conferred a constitutional right to citizens to possess firearms in their home for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. However, the court stated, and the Minnesota State Supreme Court recognized, that the right to possess a firearm does not extend to “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The United States Supreme Court upheld this general understanding in a recent opinion. (U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; U.S. Const. amend. II; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008); State v. Craig, 826 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2013); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 21 (2022).)

While most of the gun laws affecting cities are state laws, federal firearm statutes cover many areas. Federal gun laws regulate individuals in the business of buying, selling, or manufacturing firearms, firearm taxation, and interstate transfer of firearms. They also provide for licensure of most firearm vendors. Federal law generally requires those in the business of selling firearms to perform background checks on purchasers, though there are exceptions.

Federal law also limits who may have a gun and what guns people may have. These laws ban certain individuals, such as convicted felons, from buying or possessing a firearm, and block sales of handguns to those under age 21. Federal law currently bans new sales of fully automatic firearms to citizens, as well as sales of firearms containing minimal metal (including 3D-printer made guns). Federal registration is required of silencers (or suppressors), disguised or improvised firearms, and some more powerful firearms. Many federal restrictions have been called into question following the Supreme Court widening the protections of the Second Amendment in 2022. (18 U.S.C. §§ 922, 924; 26 U.S.C. § 5841).

Firearms and other dangerous weapons are banned from federal facilities. “Dangerous weapon” is defined as a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury. It does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 ½ inches in length. There are exceptions for police and military officers, as well as any possession incidental to hunting or “other lawful purposes.” (18 U.S.C. § 930.)

The major federal gun laws include the following:

National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §§ 5801–72.)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ( L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (as amended 2025).)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) (18 U.S.C. § 921–34.)
Firearm Owners’ Protection Act ( L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (codified as amended in scattered statutes of 18 U.S.C. and 26 U.S.C.); 18 U.S.C. § 845.)
Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 ( L. No. 100-649, 102 Stat. 3816 (codified as amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 921–22).)
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 107 Stat. 1536, 4844–45 (codified as amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 921–22).)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ( L. No. 103-159, 104 Stat. 4789 (codified as amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 921–22).)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ( L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095 (codified as amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 921–22 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–03).)

State regulation and pre-emption of city regulation

State authority to regulate firearms is broader than federal authority as a matter of states’ rights, but it is also limited by the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution. In Minnesota, the state has passed several firearms laws while significantly limiting the authority of cities to regulate firearms. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).)

Since 1985, the state legislature has explicitly preempted all cities, counties, towns and most other governmental subdivision from regulating “firearms, ammunition or their respective components,” with two exceptions. A governmental subdivision such as a city may regulate the discharge of firearms and it may adopt regulations identical to state law. (Minn. Stat. § 471.633.)

The term “firearm” is not defined for the purposes of the law. However, in the context of criminal law, Minnesota courts have relied on statutory definitions and dictionary definitions, generally defining a firearm as a weapon that expels a projectile by the action or force of an explosive or combustion. (State v. Haywood, 886 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2016); State v. Glover, 952 N.W.2d 190, 194 (Minn. 2020).)

Due to the state preemption, Minnesota cities have no authority to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines or any other firearm, ammunition or component thereof unless already banned by state law. Whether BB guns, distress flare launchers, and paintball guns may be banned because they are not “firearms” within the context of criminal law is less clear.

Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003

With limited exceptions, for many years, cities have been unable to regulate the carrying or possession of pistols. In 2003, the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act (MCPPA) imposed further limits on city regulation of pistols. (Minn. Stat. § 624.717; Minn. Stat. § 624.714.)

Firearms regulated by the MCPPA

The MCPPA governs the carrying of “pistols.” “Pistol” is defined as a weapon designed to be fired by the use of a single hand and with an overall length less than 26 inches, or having a barrel or barrels of a length less than 18 inches in the case of a shotgun or having a barrel of a length less than 16 inches in the case of a rifle (1) from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances; or (2) for which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, air or other gas, or vapor. This definition does not extend to BB guns, scuba guns, nail guns, or children’s toys. (Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 2.)

The MCPPA also does not apply to antique firearms which are carried or possessed as curiosities or for their historical significance or value, or to ammunition or primers, projectiles, or propellant powder designed solely for use in an antique firearm. Antique firearms are certain firearms manufactured before 1899 and certain replicas that are unable to fire most modern ammunition. (Minn. Stat. § 624.715; Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 3.)

Conduct protected by the MCPPA

The MCPPA allows individuals to carry any number of pistols into a “public place” in their motor vehicle, snowmobile or boat; on their clothing or person; or otherwise in their possession or control so long as they have a valid permit to do so. The statute requiring that individuals obtain a permit to carry in a public place was upheld as constitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2021. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subds. 1a, 11; State v. Hatch, 962 N.W.2d 661 (Minn. 2021).)

Read Permit to Carry FAQs, Minn. Bureau of Crim. Apprehension.

A “public place” is defined as property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public in sufficient numbers to give clear notice of the property’s current dedication to public use (Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 1(c)).

“Public place” does not include: a person’s dwelling house or premises, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person; a gun show, gun shop, or hunting or target shooting facility; or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms. (Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 1(c); State v. Yang, 814 N.W.2d 716, 719 (Minn. App. 2012).)

Further restrictions on public places where a permitted pistol may be carried are discussed later in this memo.

Authority with respect to city facilities.

There is no general authority for a city to ban permitted pistols from being carried into city facilities. Under an exclusivity provision within the MCPPA, no city official or employee or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority can change, modify, or supplement the law, or otherwise limit the exercise of a permit to carry. Any city action to prohibit permitted pistols on public property would likely constitute an improper additional limit on the permit to carry. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 23.)

When the MCPPA was reenacted in 2005, an amendment was proposed in the House to give cities authority to “restrict the possession or carry of a firearm, including prohibiting the possession of a firearm in local government property.” The amendment did not pass; accordingly, this legislative history suggests there is an arguable presumption that cities lack authority to prohibit permitted pistols from being carried onto city property. This prohibition does not prevent cities from making respectful requests via signs or otherwise that people leave weapons outside of city buildings. The language of these requests cannot be mandatory. (Journal of the House, May 18, 2005, p. 4113.)

Counties as sole permit issuing authority

City police departments lost authority to issue permits to carry in 2003. However, they can still process permits to purchase or transfer firearms. Since 2003, then counties have been the sole authority to issue and process permits to carry. The sheriff’s office can contract with local police departments to process the permits on behalf of the county. In this case, “the sheriff remains the issuing authority and the police chief acts as the sheriff’s agent.”

The obligations associated with taking applications, conducting background checks and issuing the permits are significant. Accordingly, LMC recommends that cities carefully consider the risks and benefits before entering into such contracts. LMC also recommends that the contract makes it clear that the county would cover the liability for the police chief’’ actions. There is potential liability if the chiefs do not follow procedures such as the mandatory background checks. (Minn. Stat. § 624.7131; Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 2.)

Peace officer firearms

Peace officers are authorized to carry firearms while on duty by inherent power of government entities. There are a number of state statutes which refer to this unwritten authority. For instance, firearm training is required by state law before the “agency head issues a firearm to the officer or otherwise authorizes the officer to carry a firearm in the course of employment.” Additionally, departments must have a “use of force” policy that does not prohibit justified use of deadly force, which is defined to include use of a firearm. Federal law allows concealed firearms to be carried if a person, among other things, “is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm.” While cities have very little authority with regard to firearms, it’s important to acknowledge this significant and fundamental power of cities and other government entities. (Minn. Stat. § 626.8452, subds. 1, 2; Minn. Stat. § 609.066, subds. 1, 2; 18 U.S.C. § 926B.)

The city is not required to authorize police officers to carry, and there is a limit to who may be authorized to carry a firearm on behalf of the city. When a city has authorized a licensed officer to carry a firearm while on duty, that officer may carry a firearm while on duty without any further authorization (e.g., permit). Whether the officer is on- or off-duty, that “authorized” officer may still carry a concealed weapon under federal law and regardless of state law unless they are intoxicated. The officer must also not be subject to any disciplinary action that could result in suspension or loss of police powers. However, despite considerable emergency powers in a crisis, cities probably cannot allow an employee or agent to carry a firearm while on duty unless the person is a licensed peace officer. While a narrow interpretation of this language would seem to suggest a limitation solely on a city arming non-police employees, the expansive language of the statute more strongly suggests that cities may not even allow non-police employees to be armed while on duty, even with privately permitted firearms. This is likely the case even though cities have additional authority to “establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment.” Cities should consult the city attorney for an interpretation if questions arise related to these statutes. (18 U.S.C. § 926B; Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 2; Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 18.)

Federal law prohibits cities from providing firearms or ammunition to an employee it knows or has reason to think is using marijuana, including medicinal usage. Although there is a legal difference between marijuana products and hemp products, it may not be possible to differentiate the products in a drug test. Officers should be mindful of any substance they ingest because they are ultimately responsible if those products lead to a positive marijuana test. (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3).)

Valid firearm regulation by cities

Clearly, in most respects state law preempts city regulation of firearms. However, there are some valid regulatory options still available to cities.

Discharge

Cities may regulate the discharge of firearms within the city limits. Typically, cities enact ordinances that disallow firearm discharges in certain parts of the city (not on streets, near schools, or in certain densely populated areas). A recent law change repealed statewide shotgun-only zones (that existed in southern and western Minnesota) for hunting deer and allows counties that were in those zones to decide whether or not to re-adopt the shotgun limitation in their county. This opens up the ability of hunters to use rifles for hunting deer in areas where discharges are allowed by cities. Cities may need to work with counties if hoping to continue shotgun-only deer hunting. Some cities prohibit discharges where a projectile would be capable of traveling to certain areas, which may de facto ban the use of rifles and other firearms that have longer-carrying projectiles. This approach is legally uncertain, and cities must work with legal counsel before implementing or amending discharge ordinances. (Minn. Stat. § 471.633(a); Minn. Stat. 97B.031, subd. 7.)

In certain wildlife management areas, restrictions on discharge of shotguns or firearms altogether may be invalid, depending on the size of the area. Presumably, the Second Amendment would allow the discharge of firearms for self-defense purposes. (Minn. Stat. § 97A.137, subd. 4.)

Provisions identical to state law

Cities may also adopt firearm regulations identical to state law. Cities cannot ban possession of permitted pistols in city facilities generally, but cities can adopt provisions already in law which prevent carrying firearms into some circumstances. Following are many of the state gun control laws that regulate locations, weapons or people, followed by some offenses specific to permitted pistols. (Minn. Stat. § 471.633.)

Regulation by location

Private, nongovernmental establishments

Firearms, permitted or otherwise, cannot be carried into a private business if the business has posted placards banning them. Under state statute, a person who carries a pistol into a private, nongovernmental establishment that has a sign at the door banning firearms must follow an order to leave or face a petty misdemeanor. This can also be accomplished by a personal notification that guns are banned. Private residences can prohibit guns in any reasonable manner. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 17.)

Court facilities

Dangerous weapons are prohibited generally in “court complexes,” though this statutory prohibition does not apply to permitted pistols. However, due to the constitutional separation of powers, the judiciary has its own authority, equal to that of the Legislature, to order by decree that all firearms, including permitted pistols, be prohibited from the court’s facilities. (Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1g.)

View order prohibiting he possession of firearms on court property in the 8th Judicial District (pdf).

Jails, lockups, correctional facilities and “state hospitals”

Whoever introduces or causes the introduction of a dangerous weapon into any jail, lockup, or correctional facility without the consent of the person in charge, or possesses a dangerous weapon while within the facility or on its grounds commits a felony.

“Dangerous weapon” includes “any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm.” Peace officers are exempted. (Minn. Stat. § 641.165, subd. 2(b); Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6.)

It is also a felony to bring, send, or cause to be introduced into a state correctional facility or hospital any firearms, weapons or explosives of any kind. This extends to the facility or hospital’s grounds and land it controls. Peace officers are exempted. For purposes of this law, “state hospital” or “hospital” means any state-operated facility or hospital under the authority of the Direct Care and Treatment executive board for (a) persons with mental illness, developmental disabilities, or substance use disorder , (b) sex offenders, (c) persons with a sexual psychopathic personality, or (d) sexually dangerous persons. (Minn. Stat. § 243.55, subds. 1, 3)

Polling places (potentially)

There is no law explicitly banning firearms from polling places, and they are possibly considered “public places” under the MCPPA — and therefore permitted pistols would be allowed. However, it is likely many polling locations are also places where guns are not permitted under other law. Many polling places are held in schools and churches.

As discussed below, there is a statutory prohibition on carrying a firearm on school property. Churches are able to ban firearms from church property, and churches are not required to comply with the posting requirements other private establishments must follow in order to ban the carrying of firearms. Cities should confirm with polling place hosts whether firearms are permitted on the property. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1a; Edina Cmty. Lutheran Church v. State, 745 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. App. 2008).)

Private use of city property

A private party that leases space in city buildings or facilities for a private, nongovernmental purpose may prohibit firearms in the leased spaced by following the posting and notice requirements described above. However, as a landlord, the city may not restrict the “lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.” (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 17.)

Public places

With some exceptions, it is a crime to carry a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun (but not permitted pistols) to “public places” as defined by law. It is a very severe crime for a person under 21 to carry to a public place a “semiautomatic military-style assault weapon” as defined by the law. It’s important to notice that through the broad exceptions, a lot of “carrying” is still allowed. This is presently a source of confusion in the law. (Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 2; Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 7.)

For example, one law states carrying “a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun” with a permit under the Personal Protection Act is not illegal “carrying” within the meaning of this law. One interpretation of this is that a permit authorizes carrying any BB gun, rifle, or shotgun into a public place. At the same time, the MCPPA permits the carrying of only “pistols,” which includes a handgun less than 26 inches, a shotgun with a barrel or barrels less than 18 inches, or a rifle of less than 18 inches, or a rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches. Further, BB guns are explicitly excluded from the definition of “pistol” governed by the Act. As a result, there is ambiguity in the law. (Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 1(b)(3); Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1a; Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 2.)

It could be that a permit will authorize carrying of some smaller rifles or shotguns meeting the definition of “pistol” to a public place, but, despite the statute, a permit cannot authorize carrying a BB gun to a public place. Given this legal ambiguity, cities are encouraged to consult their legal advisor if they encounter a situation involving carrying in a public place.

Again, the exceptions to the prohibition on carrying a BB gun, rifle or shotgun to a public place are broad. Other exceptions include carrying antique firearms, carrying firearms unloaded and in a gun case, and carrying firearms to a place where any lawful activity or ceremony involving firearms occurs. (Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subd. 1.)

Schools and child care property

It is a felony for an individual to carry any dangerous weapon, including a firearm, while knowingly on “school property.” There are additional crimes for brandishing or possessing a BB gun or gun replica on “school property.” “School property” is defined as including “a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school; a child care center licensed under chapter 142B during the period children are present and participating in a child care programs … and that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school-related use.” Accordingly, if city property is being used for any of these defined school-related purposes, guns are prohibited. However, there are exceptions to the firearm ban on school property, notably for licensed peace officers, on-duty military personnel, and lawfully storing weapons in a motor vehicle. (Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1d.)

Transportation by motor vehicle

It is generally forbidden to transport a firearm in a motor vehicle, though there are many exceptions. If the weapon is unloaded and kept in a case or the trunk, the transportation is allowed. The law also provides a “handgun” that is an antique or carried in compliance with the Personal Protection Act may be transported in a motor vehicle, though the term “handgun” is not defined. There is an exception under certain circumstances for people with disabilities. (Minn. Stat. § 97B.045, subds. 1–2.)

A person may transport an unloaded, uncased firearm (excluding pistols that are generally permitted) in a motor vehicle while at a shooting range where the person has received permission from the lawful owner or possessor to discharge firearms, while hunting on private or public land or travelling to or from a site the person intends to hunt lawfully or has hunted lawfully that day. However, this rule does not apply in Anoka, Hennepin or Ramsey Counties; within any city of population 2,500 or more; on school grounds; or as otherwise restricted by law. (Minn. Stat. § 97B.045, subd. 3.)

As noted in the context of employment later, a parked motor vehicle may be used to store an employee’s permitted pistol during a work shift if the employer has banned employees from carrying pistols while working.

Regulation by weapon

It is a crime under state law to have certain firearms, regardless of where. With some narrow exceptions, no one in Minnesota may own, possess or operate a machine gun, a trigger activator or machine gun conversion kit or a short-barreled shotgun as defined by the law. (Minn. Stat. § 609.67.)

Until 2015, silencers or “suppressors” were illegal in the state. A suppressor is defined as a device for “silencing, muffling, or diminishing the sound made by a firearm and parts that can be used to make a silencer.” They may now be possessed if a person fills out ATF paperwork, submits to a background check and pays a tax as required by the National Firearms Act. (2015 Minn. Laws ch. 65, art. 3, § 19; Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1a.)

Regulation by individual

State law provides many categories of individuals who may not possess ammunition, a pistol, a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or other firearms. These categories include persons convicted of violent or other crimes, those judicially determined to be mentally ill and generally persons under the age of 18. (Minn. Stat. § 624.713; Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subds. 2, 7; Minn. Stat. § 624.713.)

Under state law, employers, including cities, can establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment. This exception does not apply to parking areas. This exception is further discussed below. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 18.)

Crimes under the Personal Protection Act

The following are some of the crimes specific to permitted pistols:

It is a gross misdemeanor for a person (other than a peace officer) to carry a pistol in a public place without a permit (Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1a).
It is a petty misdemeanor for a person authorized to carry a gun to not have the “permit card” in their immediate possession while carrying a pistol. The charge must be dismissed if the person later demonstrates in court or in the office of the arresting officer that the person was authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation. Violating this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person’s gun. ( Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1b.)
It is a petty misdemeanor for a permit holder to fail to notify the issuing sheriff within 30 days of a change of address or a lost or destroyed card. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person’s gun. ( Stat. § 624.714, subd. 7a.)
It is illegal to carry even a permitted pistol while under the influence of alcohol, cannabis products, or a controlled substance. The processes and procedures are very similar to those for driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Any individual with an alcohol concentration of .04 or more can face criminal charges. An individual’s permit to carry may also be revoked. If the individual has an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, the gun may also be subject to forfeiture. ( Stat. § 624.7142.)
As noted before, it is a petty misdemeanor for a person carrying a permitted pistol to refuse to follow a private establishment’s request to leave if the establishment has posted placards banning guns ( Stat. § 624.714, subd. 17).

City personnel

Restricting possession

Employees

The Personal Protection Act specifically allows an employer, public or private, to “establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment.” The law also allows the city to discipline employees for violations of the policy. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 18.)

This means that cities can establish a policy that prohibits employees from carrying or possessing firearms while:

Working on city property.
Working in any location on behalf of the city.
Driving on city business.
Riding as a passenger on city business.
Performing emergency or on-call work after hours on behalf of the city.
Attending training or conferences on behalf of the city.

While the city is free to enact a policy prohibiting employees from carrying or possessing firearms while acting in city employment, doing so may be unnecessary. Another law prohibits cities from authorizing any employee or agent (besides licensed peace officers) to carry weapons — meaning city employees by default probably cannot carry weapons on the job. However, having language in a policy reflecting this prohibition may provide additional clarity to city employees. (Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 2.)

The law also states that an employer cannot prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area. For most employees, this means that they will leave any firearms in their cars during the workday. This could raise issues of security for city parking facilities. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 18(c).)

View the LMC Model Policy: Prohibiting Firearms at Work (doc)

City officials

Minnesota laws do not specifically address whether the city can restrict elected officials from carrying firearms while conducting city business.

Therefore, it depends on whether elected officials would be considered either “employees” or “acting as an agent” of the MCPPA as well as the law disallowing non-peace officers from carrying firearms on duty. This determination could be different from city to city, depending on a number of factors. For example, some cities have specifically taken actions to designate their elected officials as “employees” in order to offer them certain types of benefits such as workers’ compensation coverage, group health and life insurance and coverage in pension and retirement plans. These cities are more likely to be able to make an argument that the elected officials should be treated as employees. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 18; Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 2.)

On the other hand, many state and federal employment laws tend to exempt elected officials from coverage. For example, elected officials are not considered employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs minimum wage and overtime. They are also specifically exempt from the state law that defines public employees for purposes of collective bargaining rights. (Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 14.)

The best practice is for the city to examine how it has treated elected officials in the past on various types of issues and remain consistent with those practices. For example, if the city has designated elected officials as employees for purposes of workers’ compensation coverage and other benefits, it should probably designate them as employees for purposes of firearm-carrying laws as well.

City volunteers

The city probably cannot restrict true volunteers from carrying firearms when performing duties on behalf of the city, but a city is not required to use volunteers who carry firearms.

A true “volunteer” probably cannot be restricted from carrying firearms on the basis of being an employee or agent of the city. However, the city may be able to adopt a policy stating that it will not use volunteers unless they sign an agreement that they will not carry a firearm while acting on behalf of the city. That being said, the more control over a volunteer a city can exert might make them more likely to be an “agent of the city,” who cannot be authorized to carry a firearm on duty regardless. “Agent” is undefined in the law, but common-law agency principals may guide the determination. Cities should consult legal counsel if seeking to allow volunteers to carry firearms. (Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 2; Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220.)

In defining city volunteers, the city should take a particularly careful look at its volunteer firefighters. Many fire departments in the state compensate their volunteer firefighters in a manner that would probably be seen by the Department of Labor as making them ineligible for volunteer status under wage and hour laws. The city should attempt to be consistent in its definition of volunteer firefighters either as true volunteers or as “paid on call” city employees.

If the city determines that its volunteer firefighters are actually employees, or else act as “agents of the city,” they likely should be included in the city’s general policy prohibiting employees from carrying firearms while on duty. A similar argument could be made with respect to positions such as ambulance attendants, first responders, police reserves, and emergency response volunteers, all of whom are categorized as employees under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation laws. If they are true volunteers (and are not acting as “agents of the city”), the city may still be able to require them to sign an agreement that they will not carry a firearm while acting on behalf of the city. (Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 2)

Learn more about volunteer status from the LMC information memo, Fair Labor Standards Act: Police and Fire Employees

Role of city officials

Peace officers

The MCPPA removed permit issuance responsibility from local police chiefs and placed it with the county sheriffs. However, when an application for a permit is filed with the county sheriff, the sheriff is required to notify the chief of police of the municipality where the applicant resides. The chief of police is then authorized, but not required, to provide “any information relevant to the issuance of the permit.” While the law does not impose an obligation to provide information, local law enforcement officials may want to adopt policies that articulate what sources of information they will review in responding to notification of a permit application from a county sheriff. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 4(b)).

Upon request by an officer, permit holders are required to display their permit card with identification, provide a sample signature in the officer’s presence as well as disclose whether they are currently carrying a firearm (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1b).

Prosecutors

When a person is charged with an offense that would, upon conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney is required to ascertain whether the person is a permit holder. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor is required to notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a prohibiting offense. The prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of the case. In addition to the felony charges that would trigger this reporting obligation for county attorneys, local prosecutors will also have this obligation for certain offenses such as violations of orders for protection; domestic assault; and harassment and stalking. There could be potential liability to the city and its prosecutor if these responsibilities are not carried out. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 8a; Minn. Stat. § 518B.01; Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 3; Minn. Stat. § 609.749, subd. 8.)

Responsible Authority

All permit-application data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems are classified as private under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 13.87, subd. 2).

As a result, only the applicant and individuals within the state or local governmental entity whose work assignments reasonably require access will be able to access this data (Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 12; Minn. R. 1205.0400, subd. 2).

However, law enforcement agencies will be able to verify whether permits are valid. The commissioner of public safety is required to maintain an automated database of persons authorized to carry pistols under this new law that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This database will only be available to law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors verifying the validity of permits. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 15.)

Limited permit data will also be available to the public. On an annual basis, the commissioner of public safety must report to the legislature specific data regarding permits issued under the MCPPA. Sheriffs and police chiefs are specifically permitted to release private data to the department of public safety for this purpose. The report is available to the public at its actual cost of duplication. The report will not contain any personally identifiable data. For example, although the report will contain the number of permits applied for, issued, suspended, revoked, and denied, it will only be categorized by the age, sex, and zip code of the applicant or permit holder. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 20.)

Municipal liability exposure

There are a number of ways in which municipal liability exposure may arise due to the MCPPA.

Immunity

The law includes an “immunity” section, but it likely does not protect the city from all possible claims or lawsuits that may be brought as a result of the law. The immunity states that “a police chief,” and “any employee of … a police chief involved in the permit issuing process, [is not] liable for damages resulting or arising from acts with a firearm committed by a permit holder unless the person had actual knowledge at the time the permit was issued … that the applicant was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.” So there is protection from claims or lawsuits where the permit holder shoots someone and the injured party tries to sue the city for the information that it gave to the county to issue the permit. (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 19.)

This immunity does not apply if it can be shown that the city employee had “actual knowledge” that the applicant was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. Therefore, if the police knew that the applicant was dangerous or mentally ill and did not say anything to the sheriff after being notified, there may be liability. The immunity also does not specifically apply to cities. Cities would have to argue that they are immune through vicarious immunity because of the actions of their employees.

Finally, the immunity does not apply to lawsuits not involving acts with a firearm such as a defamation lawsuit as discussed below.

See the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Chapter 17: Liability for more information on limiting liability and asserting immunity.

Defamation

Under the law, after notification by the sheriff of a person’s application for a permit, the local police chief may provide relevant information on the issuance of the permit (Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 4(b)).

There is a potential for defamation claims by the applicant. Defamation is where you tell someone something in writing (libel) or orally (slander) that is proved to be false and results in damages to a person’s reputation or in obtaining some benefit (such as a gun permit). In this situation, damages could also be argued to include physical injury if the person can show that if they had had a gun, they would not have been injured.

Injuries to third parties

If a person or a city employee carrying a gun with a permit uses the gun to hurt someone on city premises, the city could be liable for those injuries. Under common law, the city could be liable if the city knew that the person or the employee was dangerous for other reasons. Carrying a gun legally with a permit would not give the city sufficient reason to act on the person’s ability to be on the city premises. There must have been some other action indicating danger, such as a threat or a fight.

If the city had such knowledge, it had a duty to protect other users by kicking the dangerous person out of the building or premises at that time or for a period of time. If the city didn’t do this, there could be potential liability for negligent supervision of the premises. There also is the argument that the dangerous action was foreseeable because of the past acts of the person. LMC recommends that you have a procedure in place for expelling people or employees who may be a danger to other users of the city premises. The procedure should afford some level of due process (meaning notice and an opportunity to meaningfully contest the designation).

Training

If the city provides training through a certified instructor to people who apply for permits and later use the firearm, is there liability for the city? The certified instructor individually would be immune from these types of claims and the city could argue vicarious immunity if the instructor was working in the course of his or her city employment. The immunity doesn’t apply if the instructor had actual knowledge that the person was not eligible for a permit at time of application. The certified instructor should likely also be a peace officer if the instructor is acting as an agent of the city. (Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 2; Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 19.)

Chemical testing

Under state law there is a specific procedure established for chemical testing to determine if a person is carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Is there liability if city police do not follow this procedure? Potentially, if it resulted in wrongful revocation of a permit or wrongful conviction. (Minn. Stat. § 624.7143.)

Further information

For more information, see the following resources:

Model policy used in this discussion:

Prohibiting Firearms at Work, LMC model policy (doc)