June 2026 | Legal Case Updates | Firearms

FIREARMS: FELONY “CRIME OF VIOLENCE” CONVICTION RENDERS PERSON INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM, REGARDLESS OF SENTENCE IMPOSED

Respondent was convicted of threats of violence in 2018 and received a sentence of 365 days with 361 days stayed, a downward durational departure. In February 2025, he applied with the Dakota County Sheriff for a permit to carry a pistol. His application was denied. Upon Respondent’s petition, the district court issued a writ of mandamus directing the sheriff to provide Respondent with a carry permit, finding Respondent was not prohibited from possessing a firearm.

To receive a carry permit, an applicant must not be prohibited from possessing a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 624.713. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 2(b)(4)(b). Section 624.713, subd. 1(2), provides, in part, that persons convicted of a “crime of violence” are ineligible to possess a firearm. A “crime of violence” is a “felony conviction” of certain offenses, including threats of violence. A person convicted of threats of violence may be sentenced to imprisonment for no more than five years and/or to a fine up to $10,000. Id. at § 609.713, subd. 1.

Under section 609.13, subd. 1, a felony conviction is deemed a gross misdemeanor “if the sentence imposed is within the limits provided by law for a… gross misdemeanor.” A gross misdemeanor is any crime which is not a felony or misdemeanor and may not be punished by a fine over $3,000. Id. at § 609.02, subd. 4. A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of no more than $1,000. Id. at subd. 3. A felony is a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. Id. at subd. 2.

Respondent pleaded guilty to threats of violence, which by statute is a felony-level crime of violence. Thus, he stood convicted of a “crime of violence” when the district court accepted his guilty plea before sentence was imposed. The Court of Appeals emphasizes that the definitions of the offenses listed as “crimes of violence” relate to the elements of the offense for which the defendant was originally convicted rather than the disposition subsequently imposed by the court. Here, the district court’s writ of mandamus was issued in error and is reversed. Hippe v. Leko, A25-1652, 2026 WL 1521329 (Minn. Ct. App. June 1, 2026).