It might help if I post the text of the statute in question in Minnesota
(though I'm interested in the question more generally; the same arguments
are being made in Oklahoma, as previous noted).
2.27 (c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may
2.28 not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a
2.29 parking facility or parking area.
2.30 (d) This subdivision does not apply to private residences.
2.31 The lawful possessor of a private residence may prohibit
2.32 firearms, and provide notice thereof, in any lawful manner.
2.33 (e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or
2.34 possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.
Elsewhere, a "private establishment" is defined as "a building, structure,
or portion thereof that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a
nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose." Therefore, a parking
lot is not a "private establishment," whether or not it is part of a parcel
of land that includes buildings. I suppose, however, that a parking *garage*
would be a private establishment, though a parking *lot* would not. Hmmmm.
Statutes create odd distinctions, sometimes.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Revenge is like serving cold cuts."
-- Tony Soprano
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
