Thirty-two-year-old St. Paul resident Bruce Chang drove home to find a gaggle of young men gambling on his driveway. A violent confrontation ensued. As his workplace bans firearms on their property Chang didn’t have his Smith & Wesson M&P .40 on him. Fortunately, his wife was at home and armed. From cbslocal.com . . .
“I didn’t know I was stabbed but I felt the pressure and fell to one knee,” he said. “I immediately pushed off, because you got to survive.”
He was assaulted by a mob of 15 to 30 young men gambling on his driveway. They threw rocks and jabbed a stick at his face, striking him just below his left eye.
“With one of my older neighbors, who knows what would have happened,” Chang said.
The nature of the mob attack meets the requirements for disparity of force; at least one of Chang’s attackers was aiming for his eye socket, threatening him with grievous bodily harm. Bruce Chang would have been justified in using deadly force to prevent and/or stop the attack. His wife was justified in threatening deadly force with her pistol to stop the attack.
Chang would have been less likely to have been disarmed in states like Wisconsin and Kansas, where employers are shielded from liability if they respect employees’ right to exercise their Second Amendment freedom. It would have been less likely in Texas and Florida, where employers are required to respect employees’ property rights inside their vehicle
But in Minnesota, there are no such protections. Minnesota is one of only six states that doesn’t have their own protection of the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution. Employers are free to ban firearms from employees’ vehicles and terminate the employment of any who violate the prohibition.
Corrrection: Minnesota protects people with carry permits. They have the right to keep firearms in their vehicle.
A change in the law is not forthcoming. Governor Mark Dayton is adamantly opposed to Second Amendment rights. That said, last year Governor Dayton signed off on gun law reforms that were included as part of a larger budget bill. It’s possible it could be done again to protect the right to keep and bear arms inside a vehicle.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch