What legal advice have Minnesota sheriffs and the Minnesota Attorney General issued about carrying firearms to protests?
Executive summary
Minnesota sheriffs and the Minnesota Attorney General have not, in the reporting provided, issued a single uniform new legal advisory specifically telling Minnesotans whether they may or may not carry firearms to protests; instead the guidance that can be drawn from state statute and public statements in news coverage is that permitted carry remains lawful in many public places under Minnesota’s permit-to-carry framework, while federal officials and some local voices have urged extreme caution and contested that carrying guns to demonstrations can create legal and safety risks [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows disagreement among federal authorities, local law‑enforcement commentators and gun‑rights advocates about how those rules interact with protest settings, and a federal judge has limited certain federal crowd‑control tactics amid the unrest [3] [4].
1. What Minnesota law actually says about carrying at public gatherings
Minnesota’s permit‑to‑carry statute requires sheriffs to process permit applications, conditions issuance on background checks and training, and gives law enforcement the power to ask a permit holder to disclose whether they are carrying when requested — provisions that govern whether a protester has a lawful right to possess a firearm in public [1]. Several legal summaries and state policy trackers describe Minnesota as a “permit required” state for carrying firearms in public and note that open carry of handguns with a valid permit is generally allowed while other restrictions (schools, certain government buildings, private property bans) remain in force [2] [5].
2. What sheriffs have been reported to tell the public (and the gap in the record)
The available reporting does not contain a statewide, unified advisory from Minnesota county sheriffs telling residents to bring or leave guns at protests; instead, coverage quotes local legal experts and advocacy groups about how permits interact with First Amendment activity and highlights statute requirements such as disclosure to officers [1] [3]. Where sheriffs play a role in the statutory regime — issuing permits and receiving prosecutor notifications when a permit holder is charged — that administrative function is documented, but contemporary news snippets in the briefing do not record an across‑the‑board sheriff directive on protest carry [1].
3. Statements from the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and historical context
The Attorney General’s office appears in the reporting largely as a litigant and public official weighing in on federal‑state conflicts, rather than as the source of a specific public legal advisory about carrying guns to protests; for example, Attorney General Keith Ellison has publicly criticized federal tactics in Minnesota protests and the AG’s office has a history of litigating firearm‑related statutory issues (reporting references the AG’s reactions to federal actions and earlier appeals related to carry law) but the materials provided do not include a formal AG legal memo advising protests and firearms behavior [6] [7].
4. Federal authorities, local experts, and advocacy groups — competing messages
Federal agencies, including statements referenced in local coverage, have at times argued that bringing firearms to demonstrations is unlawful or dangerous — a position criticized by 2nd Amendment experts and gun‑rights groups who say lawful possession does not forfeit First Amendment protections [3] [8]. Legal commentators quoted in local reporting call the federal categorical claim that “it is unlawful” for permit holders to carry at protests “absurd,” while federal prosecutors and some federal officials warn that armed interactions with agents can create legally justified uses of force [3] [8]. Advocacy organizations and watchdogs note broader policy debates about banning firearms at capitols or demonstrations, but Minnesota’s statutory framework and case law remain the governing touchstones in the absence of a statewide protest‑specific prohibition [9] [10] [5].
5. Practical legal takeaway and limits of the reporting
Based on the statutes and the news reporting provided, the practical legal takeaway is that carrying a firearm to a protest in Minnesota will generally be governed by existing permit and location restrictions (permit required, disclosure to officers on request, prohibitions in specified buildings), but there is no sole public pronouncement from Minnesota sheriffs or the Attorney General in the supplied reporting that supersedes those statutes; meanwhile federal warnings and a recent federal court ruling limiting aggressive federal crowd‑control tactics complicate the operational landscape for protesters and officers alike [1] [2] [4] [3]. The sources do not include a consolidated directive from Minnesota sheriffs or a formal Attorney General legal advisory specifically addressing protest carry, and further reporting or direct statements from those offices would be needed to establish any such official guidance beyond the statutory framework cited here [1] [6].