Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />The immunity also does not specifically apply to cities. Cities would have to argue that they <br />are immune through vicarious immunity because of the actions of their employees. <br /> <br />Finally, the immunity does not apply to lawsuits not involving acts with a firearm such as a <br />defamation lawsuit as discussed below. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Defamation. Under the new law (Minn. Stat. Sec. 624.714 subd. 4 (b)), after notification by <br />the sheriff of a person's application for a permit, the local police chief may provide relevant <br />information on the issuance of the permit. <br /> <br />There is a potential for defamation claims by the applicant. Defamation is where you tell <br />someone something in writing (libel) or oralIy (slander) that is proved to be false and resulted <br />in damages to the person's reputation or in obtaining some benefit (such as a gun permit). In <br />this situation, damages could also be argued to include physical injury if the person can show <br />that if they had had a gun, they would not have been injured. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Injuries to third parties. If a person or a city employee carrying a gun with a permit uses <br />the gun to hurt someone on city premises, the city could be liable for those injuries. Under <br />common law, the city could be liable if the city kncw that the person or the employee was <br />dangerous for other reasons. Carrying a gun legally with a permit would not give the city <br />sufficient rcason to act on the person's ability to be on the city premises. There must have <br />been some other action indicating danger, such as a threat or a fight. <br /> <br />If the city had such knowledge, it had a duty to protect other users by kicking the dangerous <br />person out of the building or premises at that time or for a period of time. If the city didn't do <br />this, there could be potential liability for negligent supervision of the premises. There also is <br />the argument that the dangerous action was foreseeable because of the past acts of the person. <br />LMC recommends that you have a procedure in place for expelling people or employees who <br />may be a danger to other users of the city premises. The procedure should afford some level <br />of due process. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Training by city. Ifthe city provides training through a certified instructor to people who <br />apply for permits and later use the firearm, is there liability for the city? The certified <br />instructor individually would be immune from these types of claims and the city could argue <br />vicarious immunity if the instructor was working in the course of his or her city employment. <br />As stated before, the immunity doesn't apply if the instructor had actual knowledge that the <br />person was not eligible for a permit at time of application. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chemical testing. Under Minn. Stat. 624.7143, there is a specific procedure established for <br />chemical testing to determine if a person is carrying a firearm while under the influence of <br />alcohol or drugs. Is there liability if city police do not follow this procedure? Potentially, if it <br />rcsulted in wrongful revocation of a permit or wrongful conviction. <br /> <br />Links to Related Information: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />LMC Sample Policy Prohibiting Fircarms at Work (pdf document) <br />LMC Fact Sheet: Policc and Firc Employees & the Fair Labor Standards Act (pdf document) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(6-12-03) <br />145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 0 (651) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122 . www.hnnc.org <br />