County District Court File No. 27-CR-15-28125
Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Christopher P. Renz, Gary K. Luloff, Chestnut Cambronne, PA,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
J. Morrison, Wold Morrison Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Ross,
Judge; and Stauber, Judge.
the Metropolitan Airports Commission is not a
"governmental subdivision" or any of the other
identified entities preempted from regulating firearms under
Minnesota Statutes section 471.633 (2016), the legislature
has not preempted the commission from prohibiting the
undisclosed placement of firearms through airport
security-checkpoint screening equipment.
Inez Eide arrived at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport and prepared to pass through a security checkpoint to
meet a young relative at a gate, she put her purse, which
contained a loaded handgun, onto the x-ray conveyer. Airport
police issued Eide a citation for violating an airport
ordinance. Eide argues on appeal from her conviction that the
ordinance is prohibited by Minnesota Statutes section 471.633
and is unconstitutional as a strict-liability offense.
Because the Metropolitan Airports Commission is not a
"governmental subdivision" or other entity
prohibited from regulating firearms under section 471.633,
and because the strict liability of the ordinance does not
violate Eide's constitutional rights, we affirm.
Eide went to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
in June 2015 to pick up her minor niece, who was arriving on
a flight unaccompanied by an adult. Eide obtained a gate pass
so she could meet her niece as she deplaned. Eide put her
purse on the security checkpoint conveyor to be scanned. But
she left her loaded handgun inside, and security personnel
discovered it. Eide told airport police that she had
forgotten about the gun. Police charged Eide with violating a
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) ordinance prohibiting
anyone from putting a firearm through inspection equipment at
a security screening area without first informing security
personnel about the gun.
argued to the district court that the ordinance is barred by
Minnesota Statutes section 471.633, which restricts certain
entities from regulating firearms, and that the ordinance
violates the Due Process Clause and the Second Amendment by
establishing a strict-liability firearm offense. The district
court rejected the statutory argument, reasoning that a
different statute authorizes the MAC to enact ordinances and
that section 471.633 does not limit that authority. The
district court also rejected Eide's constitutional
arguments. The parties submitted the case for trial on
stipulated facts, and the district court found Eide guilty of
violating the ordinance. Eide appeals.
I. Does Minnesota Statutes section 471.633 prohibit the MAC
from regulating firearms in airport security screening areas?
II. Does MAC Ordinance 117.6.5 violate Eide's
constitutional rights by establishing a strict-liability
offense for placing a firearm in a security screening device