Duluth Attorney | Negligent Firearm Storage Defense

Fighting a Negligent Storage of Firearms Accusation in St. Louis County with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

The moment you’re accused of a crime, especially something as sensitive and potentially misconstrued as negligent storage of firearms, your entire world can feel like it’s crashing down. It’s an immediate, jarring confrontation with the power of the state, leaving you feeling isolated and profoundly misunderstood. In Duluth, where community bonds are strong and reputations are built over decades, an accusation involving firearms and the safety of children can feel like an intensely personal attack, threatening not only your freedom but also your standing in the community and the well-being of your family. The immediate fears are overwhelming: Will I lose my job? How will this impact my relationship with my children, my standing in Proctor or Two Harbors? The thought of navigating the complex legal system alone, facing prosecutors and judges who may already hold preconceived notions, can be paralyzing. This isn’t just about a legal charge; it’s about your core identity, your parental rights, and your future being put on trial.

This isn’t a minor administrative issue; it’s a profound crisis demanding immediate and decisive action. The police, the county attorneys, the courts – they are an immense, often faceless, force with one singular objective: to secure a conviction against you. They are not concerned with the nuances of your home life, the safeguards you thought you had in place, or the devastating ripple effect a conviction will have on your life in Bemidji or Cloquet. They see a statute, a case file, and a target. But you must understand this fundamental truth: an accusation is not a conviction. It is merely the opening salvo in a fierce legal battle. Your life is not over; it has simply entered its most challenging chapter. And in this battle, you need a relentless fighter in your corner, a criminal defense attorney who not only understands the brutal realities of the courtroom but will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you, relentlessly challenging every assertion, every piece of evidence, and every assumption the state dares to throw your way. This is not a time for quiet despair; it is a call to arms, demanding a strategic, forceful, and unwavering commitment to your defense.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

Your Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for negligent storage of firearms, classified as a gross misdemeanor, leaves an indelible and damaging mark on your permanent criminal record. This isn’t a temporary footnote that fades with time; it’s a public record that will follow you for the rest of your life. Imagine applying for new employment, attempting to secure housing, or even trying to volunteer for local community initiatives in Duluth – that conviction will inevitably surface during any background check, immediately raising questions and often leading to automatic disqualification. In the close-knit communities throughout St. Louis County, such a record can profoundly damage your reputation, making it incredibly difficult to regain trust and respect, especially when the charge involves firearms and the perceived safety of children, regardless of how much time passes or how much you strive to move forward.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

A conviction for negligent storage of firearms directly implicates your Second Amendment rights. As a gross misdemeanor, it can lead to the loss of your ability to legally purchase, possess, or carry firearms, both under state and potentially federal law. For many individuals in Northern Minnesota, where hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense are deeply ingrained aspects of their lives, the permanent loss or restriction of these rights can be a profound and deeply felt personal blow. It impacts recreational activities, traditions, and a sense of personal security. Protecting these cherished liberties often begins with a robust defense against any criminal accusation involving firearms, particularly in areas like Bemidji and Two Harbors where gun ownership is prevalent.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

In today’s cautious and competitive environment, employers and landlords routinely conduct thorough background checks. A criminal conviction for negligent storage of firearms can create significant barriers to both employment and housing. Many companies, especially those with public-facing roles, those involving work with children, or those with strict safety policies, will automatically disqualify applicants with such a record. Similarly, finding suitable housing in communities like Proctor or Cloquet can become an immense challenge. Landlords often run background checks, and a conviction related to firearms and child safety can lead to immediate rejection, creating instability and making it exceptionally difficult to secure stable work and a place to live, thereby hindering your ability to rebuild your life after an accusation.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

If your livelihood depends on a professional license – whether you are a teacher, a healthcare provider, a tradesperson, or hold any other state-issued certification – a conviction for negligent storage of firearms can jeopardize your ability to maintain or renew that license. Licensing boards often review criminal convictions with intense scrutiny, particularly those involving public safety or perceived negligence, potentially leading to the suspension or revocation of your license. Beyond the professional realm, the damage to your personal reputation within the community can be severe and long-lasting. In areas where community standing and trust are paramount, an accusation, and certainly a conviction, can tarnish your image, affecting your social interactions, community involvement, and overall sense of belonging. The repercussions extend far beyond the courtroom, touching every facet of your life in St. Louis County.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

What Does the State Allege? Negligent Storage of Firearms Explained in Plain English

When the state accuses you of negligent storage of firearms under Minnesota Statute 609.666, they are alleging that you failed to properly secure a loaded firearm in a place where you knew, or reasonably should have known, that a child could access it. This law is designed to prevent accidental shootings by children. It’s not about prohibiting gun ownership; it’s about holding gun owners responsible for keeping their firearms out of the reach of minors. “Firearm” means any device designed to expel a projectile by explosion or combustion, and “child” is anyone under 18. A firearm is considered “loaded” if it has ammunition in the chamber or magazine (if the magazine is in the firearm), unless it’s designed in a way a child couldn’t fire it.

The prosecution’s case will focus on demonstrating three key things: first, that you were the person who stored or left the loaded firearm; second, that you did so negligently; and third, that you knew, or should have known, that a child was likely to gain access to that specific location. They will examine how the firearm was stored – was it locked, was it unloaded, was it hidden effectively? – and consider the likelihood of a child being in that environment. They will try to prove that “reasonable action” was not taken to secure the firearm, emphasizing the perceived danger of leaving a loaded weapon accessible to a child in a home in Duluth or any other community.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.666

Minnesota Statute 609.666 addresses the negligent storage of firearms, aiming to prevent accidental shootings by children by holding individuals responsible for securing loaded firearms against unauthorized access by minors.

Subdivision 1.Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following words have the meanings given.

(a) “Firearm” means a device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion or force of combustion.

(b) “Child” means a person under the age of 18 years.

(c) “Loaded” means the firearm has ammunition in the chamber or magazine, if the magazine is in the firearm, unless the firearm is incapable of being fired by a child who is likely to gain access to the firearm.

Subd. 2.Access to firearms.

A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access, unless reasonable action is taken to secure the firearm against access by the child.

Subd. 3.Limitations.

Subdivision 2 does not apply to a child’s access to firearms that was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry.

History: 1993 c 326 art 1 s 18; 1996 c 408 art 4 s 11

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Negligent Storage of Firearms

For the prosecution to secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.666, they must prove each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to establish even a single element, the entire case against you must fall apart. This is the crucial point where an aggressive and meticulous defense can dismantle the prosecution’s claims, forcing them to meet their incredibly high burden of proof and ensuring that no stone is left unturned in challenging their allegations.

A Person Negligently Stores or Leaves a Loaded Firearm: The state must prove that you, specifically, were the one who stored or left the firearm, and that your actions were “negligent.” Negligence here means a failure to exercise the reasonable care that a prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. They must also prove the firearm was “loaded” according to the statute’s definition (ammunition in the chamber or magazine, if the magazine is in the firearm, unless it’s designed to be child-proof).
In a Location Where the Person Knows, or Reasonably Should Know, That a Child is Likely to Gain Access: This is a critical element requiring the prosecution to demonstrate your awareness, or a reasonable person’s awareness, of the likelihood of a child accessing the firearm’s location. This involves assessing the environment (e.g., is it a home with children present? Is it a common area frequented by children in Duluth?) and your knowledge of those circumstances. If it can be argued that a child was not likely to gain access, or that you could not reasonably have known this, the element fails.
Unless Reasonable Action Is Taken to Secure the Firearm Against Access by the Child: This is a direct defense built into the statute. The state must prove that “reasonable action” was not taken. This means if you employed measures such as trigger locks, gun safes, locked cabinets, or stored the firearm unloaded with ammunition separate, the prosecution must show these actions were not “reasonable” or were insufficient to prevent access. This element allows for a powerful counter-argument by demonstrating the steps you did take, even if they ultimately failed due to unforeseen circumstances in St. Louis County.
That a “Child” (Under 18) Gains Access: While not explicitly stated as an element of the crime in Subdivision 2, access by a child is the initiating event that triggers the investigation and subsequent charge. The state will need to show that a person under 18 years of age did, in fact, gain access to the loaded firearm. The absence of child access would negate the basis for the charge under this specific statute.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Negligent Storage of Firearms Conviction

A conviction for negligent storage of firearms under Minnesota Statute 609.666 is classified as a gross misdemeanor. This means that while it is not a felony, it carries serious potential penalties that can significantly impact your freedom, your financial stability, and your future. Understanding the gravity of these potential outcomes underscores the critical need for a tenacious and strategic defense, as the state will pursue these charges with serious intent to punish.

A person who is found guilty of negligently storing or leaving a loaded firearm where a child is likely to gain access, without taking reasonable action to secure it, may be sentenced to:

Imprisonment for not more than one year: This means you could face up to 365 days in jail. This is a substantial period of incarceration that would disrupt your life, separate you from your family, and impact your employment and ability to care for dependents.
Payment of a fine of not more than $3,000: In addition to, or in lieu of, jail time, the court can impose a significant financial penalty. This fine can add to the already considerable stress and burden associated with facing criminal charges.
Or both: The court has the discretion to impose both a jail sentence and a fine, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the perceived level of negligence, and your prior criminal history.

Beyond these immediate statutory penalties, a conviction for negligent storage of firearms in Duluth or anywhere in St. Louis County will result in a permanent criminal record. This record can then affect your employment opportunities, housing prospects, and, crucially, your right to possess firearms in the future, as well as your standing in the community, particularly when the charge involves the safety of children.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now

Being accused of negligent storage of firearms in Duluth or St. Louis County can feel like an immediate and crushing judgment. The state, with its vast resources and seemingly limitless power, presents an image of an unassailable force. But you must grasp this crucial truth: an accusation is merely the opening shot in a legal conflict, not the final verdict. This is not a moment for retreat or despair; it is the precise instant to launch a tenacious, strategically precise counter-offensive. The prosecution has already crafted a narrative, a story designed to convince a judge or jury of your guilt. My unwavering mission is to meticulously dismantle that narrative, to expose every crack in its foundation, and to assert your truth with relentless, undeniable force. I will never passively accept their claims; I will challenge every single piece of their alleged evidence, scrutinize every procedural misstep they make, and rigorously question every witness until the state’s case crumbles under the sheer weight of its own deficiencies and inconsistencies.

The fight for your freedom, your reputation, and your future begins the very second you are charged. This is not a defensive crouch; it is an aggressive, proactive pursuit of justice. I will launch an exhaustive investigation into every conceivable angle, from the precise manner in which the firearm was stored to the specific circumstances surrounding the child’s alleged access. Were the safeguards you put in place truly unreasonable? Was the child’s access a result of an unforeseen event or an unlawful entry into your home in Cloquet? Were your fundamental rights violated at any point during the investigation or arrest? These are the critical questions I will relentlessly pursue. I will strategically leverage every legal tool available to us, from challenging the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence to arguing that “reasonable action” was indeed taken. This is an assertive battle, explicitly designed to expose the flaws in the state’s case and conclusively demonstrate that their accusations are not the unshakeable truth they purport them to be. Your fight starts now, and I will be there to lead the charge with unwavering determination.

How a Negligent Storage of Firearms Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

Defending against a charge of negligent storage of firearms requires a deep understanding of the statute’s nuances and a meticulous examination of the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged incident. My defense strategy focuses on attacking the prosecution’s ability to prove each element of the crime, as well as scrutinizing the methods by which they gathered their evidence.

Proof of “Reasonable Action” TakenThe statute provides a direct defense: if “reasonable action is taken to secure the firearm against access by the child.”
- Firearm Was Secured: Even if a child gained access, if the firearm was secured in a gun safe, locked cabinet, or with a trigger lock, I would argue that “reasonable action” was taken. The statute doesn’t require a foolproof system, only “reasonable” steps. The prosecution must prove the actions taken were not reasonable, which can be challenged by demonstrating the security measures in place.
- Firearm Was Unloaded and Ammunition Separate: If the firearm was unloaded and the ammunition stored in a separate, secure location, this constitutes a very strong defense, as the statutory definition of “loaded” would not be met. Even if a child found the unloaded firearm, the key element of a “loaded” weapon would be absent, undermining the charge.
- Child Incapable of Firing: The definition of “loaded” includes an exception if “the firearm is incapable of being fired by a child who is likely to gain access to the firearm.” If the firearm was an antique, required significant strength, or had a complex firing mechanism a child couldn’t operate, this defense can be raised.
Lack of Knowledge or Foreseeability of Child AccessThe prosecution must prove you knew or reasonably should have known a child was likely to gain access.
- No Children Present/Likely to Access: If no children live in the home, or if children rarely or never visit the location where the firearm was stored, it can be argued that you could not reasonably have known a child was likely to gain access. This is especially relevant if the firearm was stored in a workshop or a remote cabin in Two Harbors where children are not typically present.
- Unforeseeable Circumstances: A child’s access might have been the result of an unforeseeable event, such as a child visiting unexpectedly, or a child circumventing security measures in a highly unusual way. While some level of foreseeability is expected, truly unforeseeable circumstances can negate the “negligently” stored element.
- Child’s Access by Unlawful Entry: Subdivision 3 explicitly states the law “does not apply to a child’s access to firearms that was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry.” If a child gained access by breaking into your home in Proctor or another secure area, this is an absolute defense to the charge.
Challenging “Negligence”The core of the charge is “negligent” storage, which implies a failure to act with reasonable care.
- Standard of Care: We can argue that the actions taken met the standard of reasonable care for firearm storage, even if an unfortunate incident occurred. What constitutes “reasonable” can be debated, and a defense can present evidence of the steps taken to secure the firearm, suggesting they were indeed reasonable, despite the outcome.
- Accident, Not Negligence: An accident is not necessarily negligence. If the firearm’s accessibility was truly an oversight or a momentary lapse, rather than a systematic failure to secure, this can be argued. The prosecution must prove a departure from reasonable care, not just an unfortunate event.
- No Control Over Firearm: If the firearm was stored or left by another adult in the household, and you had no knowledge or control over their storage methods, the “negligently stores or leaves” element might not apply to you. This shifts responsibility to the actual party who controlled the firearm’s storage.
Illegal Search and SeizureThe evidence used against you must be legally obtained.
- Warrantless Search of Home: If the police entered your home in Duluth without a valid search warrant and without a recognized exception (like consent or exigent circumstances) and discovered the firearm, that evidence can be suppressed. This means it cannot be used against you in court, often leading to a dismissal of the charges.
- Exceeding Scope of Warrant: Even if a warrant was obtained, officers must adhere to its specified scope. If they searched areas or seized items beyond what the warrant authorized and found the firearm, that evidence might be inadmissible. I would meticulously examine the warrant and the officers’ actions.
- Improper Confession/Statements: Any statements you made to law enforcement without being properly Mirandized, or if your statements were coerced or involuntary, can be suppressed. If your statements are key to proving knowledge or negligence, their suppression can significantly weaken the state’s case.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

The Grandparent’s Locked Cabinet in Cloquet

A grandparent in Cloquet who frequently has their grandchildren visit has a hunting rifle stored in a locked cabinet in their study. The key to the cabinet is hidden in a seemingly obscure location in the same room. A curious grandchild, while playing, unexpectedly finds the hidden key, unlocks the cabinet, and accesses the unloaded rifle. Although no harm occurs, a parent discovers the situation and reports it. The grandparent is charged with negligent storage.

In this scenario, the defense would focus on Proof of “Reasonable Action” Taken and Firearm Was Unloaded and Ammunition Separate. My defense would argue that the grandparent did take reasonable action by storing the rifle in a locked cabinet. While the key was found, the primary security measure was the lock itself. More importantly, if the rifle was unloaded and the ammunition stored separately (as is common practice for hunting rifles not in immediate use), the statutory definition of a “loaded” firearm would not be met, rendering the charge invalid under Minnesota Statute 609.666, Subdivision 1(c).

Unexpected Visit to a Bemidji Remote Cabin

A single adult in Bemidji owns a remote cabin used primarily for hunting season. They keep a loaded firearm securely stored in a safe at the cabin. Unexpectedly, a relative arrives with their child, unannounced, and the child, exploring, finds a way into the cabin and then, miraculously, manages to open the gun safe, gaining access to the firearm. The owner is subsequently charged.

Here, the defense would powerfully leverage Unforeseeable Circumstances under the “Lack of Knowledge or Foreseeability of Child Access” defense. My defense would argue that the owner could not have reasonably known a child would be present at this remote cabin, especially without prior notice. Furthermore, the firearm was stored securely in a safe, demonstrating “reasonable action” was taken. The child’s ability to open a secure safe would be presented as an extraordinary, unforeseeable event, not a result of the owner’s negligence, particularly given the child’s unexpected presence in Bemidji.

Trespasser Access in Proctor

A homeowner in Proctor stores a loaded handgun in a hidden, locked drawer within their bedroom nightstand. Their home is burglarized. During the unlawful entry, the burglar discovers the hidden drawer, forces it open, and inadvertently leaves it open. Later, the homeowner’s child enters the room and gains access to the firearm. Despite the clear break-in, the homeowner is charged with negligent storage of firearms.

This scenario is a direct application of the Limitations stated in Subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statute 609.666: “Subdivision 2 does not apply to a child’s access to firearms that was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry.” My defense would immediately move for dismissal based on this explicit statutory exemption. The child’s access was a direct consequence of an “unlawful entry” (the burglary) which circumvented the homeowner’s “reasonable action” (the locked, hidden drawer). The law clearly protects individuals in such circumstances, providing a complete defense to the charge in Proctor.

Shared Residence, Unknowing Partner in St. Louis County

A couple lives together in St. Louis County. One partner, unbeknownst to the other, owns a loaded firearm and keeps it unsecured under their side of the bed. The other partner (my client), who has no knowledge of the firearm’s presence or negligent storage, has a child visiting for the weekend. The child discovers the firearm. My client, the unaware partner, is charged.

In this case, the defense would focus on No Control Over Firearm and Lack of Knowledge or Foreseeability of Child Access. My defense would argue that my client did not “negligently store or leave” the firearm, as they had no knowledge of its presence, let alone its loaded and unsecured state. The responsibility for the firearm’s storage lay entirely with the other partner. I would present evidence to demonstrate my client’s lack of knowledge or control over that specific firearm, highlighting that they could not have “reasonably known” about the danger if they were unaware of the firearm’s existence in the first place in their St. Louis County home.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

Countering the Resources of the State

When you are facing charges under Minnesota Statute 609.666, related to negligent storage of firearms, you are confronting the immense power and seemingly limitless resources of the state. The prosecution, supported by a vast apparatus of investigators, forensic analysts, and experienced attorneys, is singularly focused on securing a conviction against you. They possess the ability to conduct extensive investigations, compel witness testimony, and utilize sophisticated techniques to meticulously build their case, often leaving the accused feeling isolated, overwhelmed, and completely outmatched. Without an equally determined and highly capable advocate standing resolutely by your side, this inherent imbalance of power can prove devastating. I intimately understand the insidious tactics they employ, the psychological pressure they relentlessly exert, and the inherent vulnerabilities within their legal framework. My unwavering role is to serve as your impenetrable shield and your incisive sword, meticulously matching their resources with my profound experience, strategic acumen, and an unyielding commitment to your defense. I will scrutinize every single piece of their purported evidence, relentlessly challenge every procedural misstep they make, and aggressively force them to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby ensuring you are never simply crushed by the impersonal machinery of the state.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Navigating the intricate and often bewildering landscape of the criminal justice system in St. Louis County, encompassing the distinct courtrooms in Duluth, Cloquet, and Two Harbors, demands far more than a mere superficial understanding of legal statutes. Each courthouse, every presiding judge, and even individual prosecutors possess their own unique procedural quirks, unwritten rules, and preferred strategic approaches. It is fundamentally insufficient to simply comprehend the letter of the law; one must intimately grasp how those laws are practically applied, judiciously interpreted, and fiercely contested within the precise judicial arenas where your future hangs precariously in the balance. I possess a profound and granular understanding of the local court procedures, the established tendencies of the judges, and the prosecutorial strategies frequently deployed within this specific region. This invaluable, intimate knowledge empowers me to meticulously develop a defense strategy that is precisely tailored not just to the specific charges you face, but to the exact battlefield on which your legal struggle will be waged. I anticipate their every maneuver, I pinpoint their inherent vulnerabilities, and I meticulously craft a defense designed to exploit every conceivable opportunity, thereby ensuring your case is handled with the utmost precision, assertiveness, and strategic foresight it unequivocally demands. Your defense transcends mere abstract legal theory; it is about establishing comprehensive strategic command over the local judicial terrain.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report

The police report, frequently replete with formalistic jargon and presented as an unvarnished, objective truth, seldom, if ever, encapsulates the complete and complex narrative. It represents a limited, narrow snapshot, filtered exclusively through the often-biased lens of law enforcement, and is inherently designed to construct a case against you. However, you are profoundly more than a mere collection of allegations inscribed on a piece of paper. You possess a unique life, a specific set of circumstances, and a personal narrative that inherently merits being heard, understood, and respected in its entirety. When you are accused of negligent storage of firearms, the prosecution’s primary objective will be to reduce your identity to a simple criminal label, devoid of context or humanity. My unwavering purpose is to ensure that your comprehensive story, the intricate context, and the subtle nuances of your situation are brought vividly and compellingly to light. I will conduct a painstaking investigation into every conceivable detail, engage in thorough and empathetic discussions with witnesses who genuinely know and understand the real you, and uncover compelling counter-evidence that meticulously paints a complete and accurate picture. I will tirelessly work to humanize you in the eyes of the court, fighting with every fiber of my being to ensure that your character, your underlying intentions, and the full spectrum of your circumstances are comprehensively considered, rather than being overshadowed by the cold, often incomplete, facts presented in a police report originating from Proctor or Bemidji. Your story holds immense significance, and I will stand as its most formidable and unyielding advocate.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

When your freedom, your reputation, and your entire future hang precariously in the balance, you require far more than mere legal representation; you demand an unshakeable, unwavering commitment to achieving the most favorable outcome possible. Facing charges under Minnesota Statute 609.666, related to negligent storage of firearms, represents a profound crisis in your life, and you inherently deserve an attorney who approaches it with the utmost urgency, dedication, and ferocity it unequivocally demands. My commitment to your cause is absolute and without compromise. I will meticulously leave no stone unturned in the comprehensive preparation of your defense, diligently exploring every available legal avenue, and relentlessly challenging every single aspect of the prosecution’s case. Whether it entails the painstaking review of voluminous evidence, the aggressive negotiation with prosecutors to secure a favorable plea agreement (if such a path truly serves your best interests), or the unwavering and relentless cross-examination of witnesses during a trial, my singular focus remains constant: to achieve a winning result specifically tailored for you. I deeply comprehend the profound and far-reaching impact this accusation has on every facet of your life in Duluth and beyond, and I pledge to fight with every fiber of my being to safeguard your fundamental rights, protect your invaluable reputation, and secure your future. Your ultimate victory is not merely a goal; it is my sacred and unyielding mission.

Your Questions Answered

What does “negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm” actually mean?

It means that you failed to use reasonable care when storing or leaving a loaded firearm, in a way that falls below the standard of what a cautious person would do. This lack of reasonable care led to a situation where a child was likely to gain access to the firearm.

What is considered a “loaded” firearm under this law?

A firearm is considered “loaded” if it has ammunition in the chamber or if a magazine with ammunition is inserted into the firearm. However, an exception exists if the firearm is designed in such a way that a child who is likely to gain access to it would be incapable of firing it.

Will I go to jail if convicted of negligent storage of firearms?

Possibly. Negligent storage of firearms is a gross misdemeanor in Minnesota, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and/or a $3,000 fine. The actual sentence depends on the specific circumstances of your case, your prior record, and the judge’s discretion.

Can I lose my right to own firearms if convicted?

Yes. A conviction for negligent storage of firearms (a gross misdemeanor) typically results in the loss of your right to possess firearms under both Minnesota and federal law. This is a significant consequence that can be permanent.

What if the child accessed the firearm through an unlawful entry into my home?

Minnesota Statute 609.666, Subdivision 3, specifically states that the law does not apply if the child’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry (e.g., a burglary). This is a direct defense to the charge.

What if I used a gun safe or trigger lock?

If you used a gun safe, trigger lock, or other security device, this is strong evidence that you took “reasonable action” to secure the firearm, which is a direct defense under the statute. The prosecution would have to prove that these actions were not reasonable in your specific circumstances.

Does this law apply if there are no children living in my home?

The law applies if you “know, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access.” If no children live in your home and children are not likely visitors, it could be argued that you did not “reasonably know” a child would gain access, weakening the prosecution’s case.

What if the firearm was unloaded, but ammunition was nearby?

If the firearm was truly unloaded (no ammunition in the chamber or attached magazine) and the ammunition was stored separately, even if nearby, the firearm might not meet the statutory definition of “loaded.” This can be a key defense point.

How quickly should I hire a defense attorney for this charge?

Immediately. The sooner you engage a defense attorney, the better. They can advise you on your rights, handle communication with law enforcement, begin investigating the facts, and start building your defense before critical evidence is lost or damaging statements are made.

Can this charge affect my child custody rights?

Yes, unfortunately. An accusation or conviction involving negligent firearm storage and a child’s access can be viewed seriously by family courts and may impact child custody or visitation arrangements. This highlights the importance of fighting these charges vigorously.

What kind of evidence will the prosecution use?

The prosecution will likely use evidence such as the firearm itself, photographs of its storage location, any security devices (or lack thereof), statements from witnesses (including the child, if applicable, and other family members), and possibly your own statements to police.

Is “negligence” hard for the state to prove?

“Negligence” requires the state to prove that your actions fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent person. This can be challenging for the prosecution, as what constitutes “reasonable action” can be debated, especially if you had security measures in place.

What if I was unaware of the firearm’s loaded status?

While you are expected to know the status of your firearms, if you can genuinely demonstrate that you were unaware the firearm was loaded, and that this unawareness was not due to negligence, it could be a defense. This often involves examining how the firearm came into your possession or its typical use.

Will this conviction prevent me from hunting in Minnesota?

A conviction for negligent storage of firearms, as it leads to the loss of firearm possession rights, would effectively prevent you from hunting with firearms in Minnesota. This is a significant consequence for many in Northern Minnesota.

Can this charge be expunged from my record?

As a gross misdemeanor, negligent storage of firearms may be eligible for expungement in Minnesota after a certain period and if specific conditions are met, such as completing your sentence and remaining conviction-free. However, expungement is not guaranteed and requires a separate legal process.