Retroactive change doesn't affect ban on gun possession.

Byline: Dan Heilman

The retroactive reclassifying of a crime does not revive an offender's right to possess a firearm, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in an opinion published last week.

In 1998, Benjamin Tapia, the appellant, was adjudicated delinquent for felony theft of a motor vehicle. At that time, theft of a motor vehicle was listed in Minnesota statutes as a crime of violence, meaning that he was ineligible possess a firearm for 10 years after the expiration of the sentence or disposition.

In 2003, though, the Legislature amended the statute governing eligibility to carry a firearm to create a lifetime ban on possessing a firearm once a person is deemed ineligible. The Legislature retroactively applied the lifetime ban, reasoning that "The lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms for persons convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a crime of violence in clause, applies only to offenders who are discharged from sentence or court supervision for a crime of violence on or after August 1, 1993."

Because Tapia was adjudicated delinquent for theft of a motor vehicle in 1998, after the date provided in the statute, the lifetime ban applied to him.

Then, in 2014, the Legislature changed the statutory definition of a "crime of violence" and removed car theft from the list of crimes. The effective date of the amendment was Aug. 1 of that year, and it expressly applied "to crimes committed on or after that date."

In March 2017, Tapia applied for a permit to carry a pistol, which Dakota County granted him. The following year, during an annual review of Tapia's records, the sheriff's office discovered Tapia's 1998 juvenile delinquency adjudication and voided his permit to carry in July 2018.

After forfeiting his permit-to-carry card to the sheriff's office, Tapia petitioned Dakota County district court for a writ of mandamus to order the sheriff to issue him a permit to carry in the fall of 2018. After a hearing, the district court denied Tapia's petition, concluding that the lifetime ban applied to him despite the 2014 amendment to the definition of a "crime of violence." Tapia then appealed.

Writ of mandamus denied

At issue was whether the district court erred by denying Tapia's petition for a writ of mandamus based on his ineligibility to possess a firearm.

Tapia acknowledged that his adjudication for theft of a motor vehicle in 1998 was, at that time, an offense included in the definition of a crime of violence. As a result of his...