Thursday, February 6, 2014

What Kurt Daudt, House Minority Leader, did wrong, and why it illustrates how Stand Your Ground law is bad, and MN concealed carry permit law is inadequate

Repost by Dog Gone from Penigma:

A summary of events, from the Star Tribune last month:
The lead Republican in the Minnesota House of Representatives acknowledged Friday that he was involved in a gun-related dispute in Montana in September that resulted in his arrest and felony charges against a friend who was traveling with him.

According to the charges filed by the Park County district attorney in Montana, House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt, 40, of Crown, along with Daniel Benjamin Weinzetl, 24, of Cambridge, had traveled to Livingston, Mont., on Sept. 7 to buy a vintage Ford Bronco.

Daudt got into an argument with the seller that escalated, the records said. While Daudt and the seller argued, Weinzetl went back and pulled Daudt’s black handgun from the car and allegedly pointed it at the seller’s “entire family, including the children,” according to court records.

Weinzetl was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and criminal endangerment, all felonies. He posted $50,000 bail two days later and was ordered to stay out of Montana with the exception of future court hearings. He pleaded not guilty to all three counts in October. Daudt, who is not named in the complaint, was not charged.

Previous offenses

According to Minnesota court records, Weinzetl, a construction worker, has landed in trouble before.

His record shows multiple traffic offenses and he was found guilty in 2010 of assault on a police officer and obstructing the legal process, both gross misdemeanors, following a March 2010 incident in which he punched a man outside his home. When an Isanti County Sheriff’s deputy arrived at the house to speak with Weinzetl and his brother, Weinzetl shoved and punched the deputy, breaking his glasses and tearing his uniform. The deputy reported that he tried unsuccessfully to use a Taser on Weinzetl.
According to a statement Daudt made to the media, via KMSP:
In the statement, Daudt casts himself as a peacemaker in a tense situation. He said the friend retrieved the gun without his knowledge and stressed it was not fired. Daudt said the gun is owned by him, though it is not known if he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public. Daudt told KSTP that there were bullets in the magazine but not the chamber.
Daudt reports driving to Montana with the loaded gun under the front seat, and Daudt is a Concealed Carry Permit holder. While Daudt denied it to KSTP, he WAS apparently arrested in Montana, but not charged -- so far. His associate, who has been charged with multiple felonies, does not have a CC Permit, apparently, but would be eligible for one under MN law should he apply for one. The complaint can be read here.

So.....what did Daudt do wrong, and why does this reflect on Stand Your Ground laws, something likely to be introduced or attempted to be introduced, into the next session of the lege? And what does this incident show us about the problems in our current relatively lax Concealed Carry Permit laws?

First of all, multiple laws require that a firearm be transported unloaded and separate from the ammunition, in a locked container, and separate from the passenger compartment of the vehicle. This is true of state law for Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana law, and this is true of federal law. Holding a CC permit does not excuse someone from properly transporting their firearm when they are not carrying it.

Here is the MN statute, complete with link and the additional link relating to MN statute and transporting firearms:

2013 Minnesota Statutes


Subdivision 1.Restrictions.

A person may not transport a firearm in a motor vehicle unless the firearm is:
(1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed;

(2) unloaded and in the closed trunk of a motor vehicle; or

(3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715.

The first reference in section (3) refers to transport without a CC permit and is shown below; it is worth noting that Daudt was NOT transporting his firearm for purposes of repair or target practice; this is included here to illustrate that NO ONE may legally transport a loaded gun. It is also included here, because people who hold CC permits are expected to know the law. We should expect that to be especially true of our legislators who write those laws.

2013 Minnesota Statutes

Subd. 9.Carrying pistols about one's premises or for purposes of repair, target practice.

A permit to carry is not required of a person:
(5) to transport a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile or boat if the pistol is unloaded, contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, or securely tied package.
But Daudt was NOT transporting his firearm for target practice or repair across a relatively short distance in Minnesota. Daudt was transporting a firearm across all or parts of three states. THAT puts his transportation under the regulation of the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, specifically the Safe Passage Provision, courtesy of Cornell Law:

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 926A
18 U.S. Code § 926A

- Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
"IF, during such transportation THE FIREARM IS UNLOADED, AND NEITHER the firearm NOR any ammunition being transported is readily accessible" is the relevant part of the law here, because clearly Daudt's firearm was in fact both loaded and readily accessible, apparently during the entire trip.

THAT was illegal, unsafe, and irresponsible, yet we are told over and over again by the pro-gun crowd who want to carry their handguns everywhere they go, that they are in fact law abiding, safe, and responsible. Clearly they are not, as Mr. Daudt's behavior is not particularly unusual, AND appears to have the support of his fellow MN GOP members in the lege.

But the manner of transport, and allowing his handgun to be easily accessed for an illegal purpose - to threaten a man, his wife and children - is not the only objectionable behavior by Minority Leader of the MN House of Representatives. That Kurt Daudt also did not report the crime to authorities, but instead assisted his friend to flee the state after committing what is an alleged felony is also unethical, irresponsible, and apparently illegal. Daudt does not deny providing his friend with the keys to a vehicle to enable him to leave the state. This was presumably not only to help his friend, but because leaving the state was convenient and expedient for Daudt, regardless of flouting the law.

I don't claim to be an attorney, nor do I play one on tv. But this is a common legal definition for Accessory after the fact, which is a crime. Once again, thanks to Cornell Law:

Accessory after the fact


Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.
We have an instance where Daudt knew or reasonably should have known (as a person instructed in the law to become a CC permit holder) that threatening someone with a gun is a crime, and likely to be a felony. He was present and a witness to the events, and therefore clearly knew that this occurred. And he obviously knew that he was assisting his friend to leave the state rather than to risk arrest and punishment.

As a law maker, and as a responsible adult, he should have reported what occurred, not taken off for the border. Instead he provided the means for his associate to leave the state, or at least, attempt to leave the state. Regardless of whether or not Daudt is charged in Montana, this presents serious concerns about how law abiding and responsible he is -- or more precisely, is not.

That Daudt further attempted to keep this incident from the public indicates he presumably knew that this does not reflect well on his judgment, either as a law maker, or as a CC permit holder who goes about armed. It does not appear that Daudt made even a minimal attempt to comply with either federal law or the state laws of Montana and North Dakota before traveling across those states. That would seem to indicate a fundamental disregard and disrespect for law generally, and for the laws of other states specifically, which is NOT a desirable quality in the Minority Leader of the MN House of Representatives. It reflects badly on Minnesota.

It is worth noting that the MN BCA website, re reciprocity of CC permits, notes that MN does not have reciprocity with either NoDak or Montana, and that it advises (but does not require) checking with other states before travel - my emphasis added:

Permit to Carry Reciprocity

Minnesota permit holders who plan to visit another state, and who also wish to carry a concealed firearm while visiting that state, are urged to contact that state before traveling. This will allow Minnesota permit holders to determine all restrictions or prohibitions regarding the carrying of concealed firearms in those states, as well as their laws regarding firearms and weapons in general. Most of these states have web pages dedicated to this subject. State firearm laws and reciprocal agreements may change frequently, and are also subject to court interpretation.
Beyond the conduct of Kurt Daudt, it is likely that we will see a renewed effort to pass some form of Stand Your Ground law in Minnesota from the MN GOP members of the legislature.

Prohibitions for CC permits:
518B.01, subdivision 14; domestic abuse

609.224, subdivision 3
Daudt's associate, Weinzetl appears to qualify for a CC permit, in spite of a gross misdemeanor assault in the 5th degree IF it occurs within 3 years of a previous incident of violence, as his prior problems in this regard occurred in 2010 - unless he is convicted of a felony or plea-bargains down to a gross misdemeanor in Montana for this most recent brush with the law.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 609.2242, subdivision 3, paragraph (c), a person is not entitled to possess a pistol if the person has been convicted after August 1, 1992, of assault in the fifth degree if the offense was committed within three years of a previous conviction under sections 609.221 to 609.224, unless three years have elapsed from the date of conviction and, during that time, the person has not been convicted of any other violation of section 609.224.
(iv) 609.749; stalking
(v) 624.713; ineligible because of being a minor, drugs, mental illness, etc.
(vi) 624.719; not an illegal immigrant
(vii) 629.715, subdivision 2; under arrest for a crime of violence during very narrowly limited criteria (out of state arrests do not appear to apply among those criteria)
629.72, subdivision 2; summary of above domestic abuse, protection orders, etc.
and certain violations of federal gun laws

I find it VERY concerning that someone who has demonstrated repeated disregard for the law and the tendency towards violent actions and a lack of responsible judgment, including assaulting a law enforcement officer, still qualifies for a Minnesota CC permit, apparently even after a felony arrest in another state.

Add to that the evidence that in Stand Your Ground states, there is a lowering of the standard for shooting another person from objective evidence of self defense to subjective fear, and include in that the number of instances where under SYG unarmed people are threatened and shot, and it is clear that SYG is a problem, not a solution. There is no evidence that our CC permit laws, expanded in the previous decade, have made us any safer, or that CC permit holders are as safe, responsible and law abiding as they claim. We have seen instances of CC permit holders engaging in road rage shootings, and cases of children dying from firearms in the homes of CC permit holders. Guns, as we have seen in the incident involving Kurt Daudt's handgun, are too easily used to escalate violence, instead of people resorting to other alternatives, including leaving the conflict, or calling law enforcement, and those firearms belonging to CC permit holders are not reliably secured from others. Kurt Daudt is an excellent example of why we should not pass an SYG law in Minnesota. States with more guns and more lax gun laws have more gun deaths, gun injuries, and gun accidents than those that have more and more stringent gun laws.


  1. To my knowledge, at least according to USA Carry, Montana and Minnesota have reciprocal agreements, but I'm not a Minnesota license holder, so I don't know for sure. Both states recognize an Arkansas permit. This situation would be resolved by having national reciprocity and by always keeping the pistol on one's own person.

    1. There would be nothing in this situation improved by having the man who threatened an unarmed man and his family carrying a gun legally.

      There was nothing in this situation that demonstrates the CC permit holder, Kurt Daudt, was in fact law abiding, safe or responsible, and nothing in making more reciprocity would make either man "a good guy with a gun", contrary to the NRA claims.

      The ONLY thing that would make this situation better would be if neither Kurt Daudt, OR his violent idiot friend had access to a gun, anywhere, in any of the three states traversed in this incident.

      Minnesota BCA identifies the two states, Montana and Minnesota, as having very different gun laws, and notes that MN does not recognize Montana CC.

      Illegal under federal law is illegal in all three states. Daudt was transporting his firearms in a dangerous and irresponsible and illegal manner. PERIOD.

      It goes to show how the cc permit holders are NOT as you represent them to be. We need fewer of them, not more of them.

    2. Dog Gone's right, Greg. You skirted right past the important point that a gun was misused. Your continual whining about reciprocity is besides the point.

    3. Except that Daudt wasn't the one who threatened the vehicle's owner. You missed that.

    4. It also goes to the fallacy about shall issue, which is clearly a bad idea, and it goes to the point that CC permit holders are not responsible, not safe, not law abiding.

    5. Dog gone, are you ok with a may-issue system that could have/would have denied you your carry permit?

    6. National reciprocity?
      So you agree that individual States cannot have their own and different gun laws?

    7. Greg, I didn't miss that. Did you miss the point Dog Gone made about Daudt not having maintained control of his weapon? If you left one of your guns around and someone picked it up and committed a crime with it, would you have no responsibility for that? I know that's a dumb question since you insist the gun owner has no responsibility at all when one of his guns is stolen. Only the thief, and in this case, only Weinzetl is responsible for what happened. But, just like I insist about gun theft, the owner may not be responsible for the theft and what happens with the gun afterwards, but he sure as shit is responsible for not having safely secured his weapon.

  2. "It is worth noting that the MN BCA website, re reciprocity of CC permits, notes that MN does not have reciprocity with either NoDak or Montana, and that it advises (but does not require) checking with other states before travel - my emphasis added:"

    You are correct that North Dakota doesn't have reciprocity with Minnesota. Nor South Dakota for that matter. You did however forget to check Montana. While Minnesota doesn't recognize Montana permits, Montana does recognize Minnesota permits.

    In addition Montana does allow open carry without a permit, so if he had decided to carry without a permit, he could have as long as it wasn't concealed. Montana also allows the transport of loaded firearms in vehicles as long as it isn't concealed on their person.

    So, as a holder of a Minnesota carry permit, he appears to have broken no laws in either Minnesota or Montana. Weinzetl didn't even break any laws by carrying the pistol until he supposedly threatened someone with it.
    Carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle in North Dakota is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to thirty days in jail and/or a one thousand dollar fine.

    1. I did check Montana. Federal law does not allow transport of loaded guns, nor does Minnesota or North Dakora -- that is two states with a law broken as well as federal law.

      I carefully read the Montana law, and it appears your interpretation of loaded transport is incorrect. I suggest you review it, as it has variations for purpose, kind of gun, and locations.

      So yes, Daudt then DID break MN law. Weinzetl, as a man with multiple instances of violence and law breaking, is far from a responsible individual.

      Are you seriously arguing that it was ok for Daudt to lose control of his firearm, and allow it to be used to threaten an unarmed family? It was certainly not safe.

      I would point out to you the 1997 study that found 40% of felonies were committed not with guns bought on the street or stolen, but obtained from family or friends -- like Daudt.

      The incident would not have happened, had Daudt not brought his damned gun along.

      Thank god the Montana man didn't have a gun on him as well, or under the SYG laws, the two of them would be having a shootout, each claiming the other was a threat.

      This was a colossal fuck up of irresponsibility, unsafe practices, and illegality. There really is no other way for you to spin it.

    2. Good points, Dog Gone. What do you say, ss?

    3. Lets start on a federal level. The safe passage provision protects a person from prosecution when traveling through states with strict firearm laws. All the law does is protect the owner from state level prosecution, if he follows those guidelines. So the safe passage law isn't germane to this debate at all because I haven't seen anyone invoking it. In Minnesota, carrying a loaded handgun is allowed under the exceptions DG cited.
      "(3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715"

      624.714 is the section mandating the carry permit law. Since Duadt had a carry permit, no Minnesota laws broken.

      Since the federal law doesn't apply at all here, everything is determined by state laws. He did violate the law in South Dakota as I cited in my original post.
      So now we come to Montana. Montana does recognize Minnesota carry permits as valid in their state and I supplied the link to document it. Here it is again,
      Montana is also an open carry state, however, plus they also allow the transport of loaded firearms in their state. I also supplied that link,
      Duadt's traveling companion has been charged for his behavior and if convicted, will be held accountable. Keep in mind, that by all accounts, Weinzetl took the pistol without permission, so his crimes are his own doing.

      By your opening comment, you don't mention that transport of a loaded firearm in a vehicle is illegal, so I'm presuming you found it to be legal.
      For some reason, the county attorney declined to charge Duadt with anything, and since this happened back in September, I doubt that is going to change. So it doesn't seem that the prosecutor is going with the accessory charges.
      Duadts position in the legislative leadership is under the control of his party. And whether he holds his seat as a legislator is in the hands of the voters.

    4. Dog Gone, you haven't been missed.

    5. Safe passage law DOES apply, in NoDak.
      Daudt made the gun accessible and available; if not illegal, it was stupid and irresponsible, given his associate's past behavior.
      You keep avoiding the part about assisting his associate to leave the state after a felony with Daudt's gun -- he provided the vehicle, and apparently paid his gas.

      Daudt was arrested in MT; he hasn't been charged yet, but that doesn't mean he won't be - he could still be, depending on the conviction of W. for a felony.

      Daudt was not responsible, not law abiding, not safe --- all things the gun huggers tell us over and over that CC permit holders are, when we see over and over that they are not.

      It also goes to underline why 'shall issue' is bad.

    6. Campy, you aren't enjoyed when you are here.

    7. He admitted he helped the accuse flee the State by giving him the keys to his car.

    8. Not just "helped" - bought the vehicle, paid for the gas, provided the directions, and lead the way.

      And then violated state law crossing NoDak on the way back again.

    9. "Safe passage law DOES apply, in NoDak."

      I think you misspoke DG. Safe passage doesn't apply because the conditions detailed in the law weren't followed. All the safe passage law does is prevent prosecution under state law. If you've seen a penalty some where against a gun owner, I'd love to see it.
      Since the gun owner cant claim protection under the safe passage section of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, if he had been stopped in North Dakota, he could have rightfully been prosecuted for possession of a loaded gun in a vehicle, which as I showed above, is a class B misdemeanor.

      "You keep avoiding the part about assisting his associate to leave the state after a felony with Daudt's gun"

      They haven't bothered to charge the guy who is charged with fleeing to avoid prosecution, or obstruction of justice. If they aren't charging the guy who supposedly committed the felony for fleeing, what make you think they'll charge the other guy who hasn't been charged with anything?
      Actually, I have been contending that permit holders are much more law abiding than the general population. Even gun control advocates have been prosecuted for gun crimes in the past.
      If an individual with a permit commits a crime with a gun, then he gets prosecuted. Just as when gun control advocates commit gun crimes.

    10. Dog Gone, you call for a may-issue system, but you should realize that unless you're politically connected, you wouldn't have been issued a carry license.

      By the way, do you recall how Jadegold attacked you for carrying a gun?

    11. "Not just "helped" - bought the vehicle, paid for the gas, provided the directions, and lead the way.
      And then violated state law crossing NoDak on the way back again."

      Laci, the way the article reads, we really don't know where they were stopped. Though my impression would be that they might not have made it out of the county.
      They went out to Montana with the intent to buy the vehicle in the first place. In fact, my guess is the reason he brought Weinzetl was to get both cars back home. He didn't buy the vehicle for the sole purpose of aiding someone's escape.
      You also have no proof that he violated North Dakota law by passing through the state again. Do you have additional knowledge that the police returned Duadt's pistol to him. I didn't see it mentioned, but my guess is that the pistol Weinzetl used is sitting patiently in an evidence locker to be used in the trial.

    12. They could have driven through, oh, I don't know, South Dakota, for example.

    13. I did check Greg and neither state permits carry of a loaded firearm without a carry permit. And neither state recognizes a Minnesota carry permit. Montana surprised me. I saw that Minnesota didn't recognize Montana permits and didn't think for a while to check to see if Montana recognized Minnesota's. Learn something new here every day.

    14. It surprises me that these states don't have reciprocal agreements. Do they issue out-of-state permits? Perhaps they're hoping to raise extra money from their neighbors.

  3. Laci, you are piece of work aren't you? Did you even bother to LOOK at the other states laws? Hmmm Proly not. If you actually read Montana's carry laws you would see that they were able to travel within the State of Montana with the pistol like that. And I quote from

    "45-8-317. Exceptions. (1) Section 45-8-316 does not apply to:
    (i) a person who is outside the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining, or railroad camp or who is lawfully engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, backpacking, farming, ranching, or other outdoor activity in which weapons are often carried for recreation or protection; or (j) the carrying of arms on one's own premises or at one's home or place of business.
    So you can carry concealed outside Cities, Towns, Logging, Lumbering, Mining and Railroad Camps without any type of permit. In or out of your car. But since Montana law defines concealed as cover or partially covered by clothing you can carry a loaded handgun in the Glove Box or Console in the Cities, Towns etc in Montana without any type of permit/license."

    1. Anonymous, no they weren't able to do so legally. It violates federal law, cited above.

      Or do you only read selectively the laws you want to follow, and ignore the rest?

      In any case, Daudt allowed his gun to be used for an illegal purpose by a dangerous and irresponsible violent man. That was not safe or legal.

      Further - do you know this to have occurred outside of one of those jurisdictions?

      And none of you are addressing the accessory after the fact / fleeing a felony law breaking either.

      The facts are not on your side in this. It goes to show how much of a bad thing CC is, period.

    2. You misinterpreted the federal law. It is not a gun control law mandating transport be done in a certain way. It is actually a gun rights law protecting travelers from onerous out of state and local laws. If you transport in the manner stated, the federal law protects you from prosecution by state or local laws provided you are only passing through. If the state allows loaded concealed and accessible transport, then you may transport that way.

    3. North Dakota law requires transport the same way the federal law does.

      And no, you don't get to make up how the law is applied. The state does not allow loaded and concealed accessible transport.

      No matter how you TRY to spin it, this was unlawful, irresponsible, dangerous conduct from a law maker and legislative leader that represented himself as safe, lawful and responsible when he was not.

      It demonstrates how SYG escalates violence that is avoidable, and it shows what is wrong about shall issue.

      And it beautifully illustrates how BAD your gun culture and especially the claims of the NRA about the good guys with their guns are.

    4. OK whatever you have to say dog gone. If you are soo right call the Feds. I am sure they will be more than happy to make an example of a State rep.

    5. The "safe passage provision" of the FOPA does not require transport in any way. It provides protection for gun owners, not prosecution. Did you read the text you pasted? Particularly the part that says "shall be entitled to transport a firearm..."? An entitlement is what it provides. If you still want to fight me on this, show me the part of the provision where it specifies penalties. Is it a misdemeanor, a felony, or what?

  4. Rest assured,, if this guy had been a Democrat this post would never have seen the light of day.
    Anyone care to deny that?

    orlin sellers

    1. I do. You know nothing about Daudt's politics, specifically, or the politics of the state of MN, Orlon fuzzy-brain.

    2. A 30 second scan of your blog will fully inform anyone of your corn-pone opinions.and your pathetic pathological partisanship, honey.

      orlin sellers

  5. Well, Dog Gone has lingered in her drive-by commenting. Of course, she can't be bothered to answer anyone's points, since she's too caught up in her own perception of superiority, but one would think that she'd explain to us why she saw herself as worthy of carrying a handgun.

    1. Is that why you refuse to respond anyone's questions, "perceptions of superiority?"

    2. I haven't refused to answer any question--so long as it's not being insulting. And if you're asking about a specific comment or something similar, I expect proper links to the source for verification.

    3. "I haven't refused to answer any question"
      I'll give you one thing, when you lie you go for a whopper.