Sometimes, you know what you claim not to know

State v. Linville, Jr., --- N.W.2d ----, 2008 WL 4007428, Minn.App., September 02, 2008

This is truly something only lawyers would fight about. Does the source of your knowledge of your disqualification from possession a firearm shield you from prosecution for possessing a firearm in the face of that disqualification? Here’s the deal.

Mr. Linville picked up his “crime of violence” conviction in September 2003. This conviction made him ineligible to possess firearms. Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b) (2002). He served his term of probation, got his discharge order; that order neglected to check the box that said he was ineligible to possess firearms for the next ten years.

Three months after getting his discharge Mr. Linville is charged with possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. His lawyer gets this charge dismissed on the basis of the erroneously completed discharge order. At that point, Mr. Linville must have thought he had a lifetime pass to possess firearms because a mere four months later he is once again charged with possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. His lawyer again moves to dismiss on the basis of the original, deficient discharge notice.

But wait, not so fast. On this, the second possession by an ineligible charge, does Mr. Linville really lack notice of his ineligibility to possess firearms? Did not the dismissal of the first possession by an ineligible charge clue him in that there had been a mistake on the original discharge order? Must the clerk who accidently omitted that all important check mark on the discharge notice forever bear the equivalent of Hester’s “A”.

In a word, no. This, the court informs us, is based on “a long-held principle in Minnesota that ignorance of the law is not a defense when it would have been possible, had [the defendant] made the effort to do so, to learn of the existence of the prohibition.” State v. Grillo, 661 N.W.2d 641, 645 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. 5 Aug. 2008).