Joel Rosenberg seems to have gotten himself arrested for carrying in a courthouse complex. The Minnesota legislature was less than abundantly clear when it prohibited carry in courthouse complexes, but the case against Mr. Rosenberg is going to hinge on this:
Subd. 1g.Felony; possession in courthouse or certain state buildings.
(a) A person who commits either of the following acts is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:
(1) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse complex; or
(2) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives in any state building within the Capitol Area described in chapter 15B, other than the National Guard Armory.
(b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:
[…]
(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;
There seems to be some dispute as to whether the office was notified. Rosenberg and his wife said they called. The warrant issued says there was never notification. If someone wanted to challenge this ordinance, the proper thing to do would have been to provide notice through certified mail, with return receipt, so there would be some means of proving in a court of law that you complied with the requirement. Never trust that the police are going to tell the truth! Now it’s going to be his word against the police that he complied with the statute. Who do you think the jury will believe? The courts, probably the same courts that issued the court order contrary to state law, will also get to decide what constitutes notification under the statute.
In short, I think Rosenberg is screwed. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but it does mean he wasn’t careful. I am not saying Rosenberg was wrong for challenging the law, nor am I saying he needs to lick the boots of the authorities, but if you’re going to set up to challenge a law, or unlawful court order, you need to line your ducks up very precisely, because failure to do so means court precedent the rest of us have to live with.
So I’m not going to jump on his bandwagon. He’s got guts, I’ll give him that, but so do protesters who light themselves on fire. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the law is black and white. In most cases, it’s not. The law is what a court says the law is. Much like politics, this is a game, and also much like politics, if it is not played carefully, and with skill, everyone loses. I indeed hope Rosenberg has a good lawyer in this, because he’s going to need one. There’s probably no Second Amendment to appeal to either, because it’s a prohibition in court complexes, which would seem to easily pass Heller‘s “sensitive places,” language. It’s all pretty much going to hinge on that notice.
UPDATE: In the comments, it would seem that Mr. Rosenberg does have written evidence that the law was complied with. If he does, it will make his defense attorney’s job a lot easier.
