The attorneys over at Mohrman & Kaardal in Minneapolis are enjoying the spotlight these days.
Erick Kaardal
Erick Kaardal is making news locally by challenging the state’s seat belt law. Kaardal represents a driver who was pulled over and cited for not wearing her seat belt — in accordance with a law enacted last year. But according to Kaardal, there is a statute that says a cop can’t issue a citation unless the driver was stopped for a moving violation.
The case is being considered by a Dakota County District Court judge.
Kaardal is the founder of neopopulism.com, and has worked with clients to sue the federal, state and local governments. According to the neopopulism website, the cases generally involve allegations that the government “has violated its authority, the rule of law and common sense.”
Bill Mohrman
Last week, two of Kaardal’s colleagues, Bill Mohrman and Vince Fahnlander, were victorious — to say the least — in a 1st Amendment case tried to a federal judge in Iowa.
Vince Fahnlander
According to a press release announcing the verdict, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett ruled from the bench for the first time in his life, calling Osceola County Sheriff Doug Weber’s denial of Paul Dorr’s concealed weapon permit in 2007 “the most egregious violation of the First Amendment he has witnessed in his 16 years serving on the bench.”
Apparently the sheriff admitted on the witness stand that the reason he refused to issue Door a permit was because Dorr “began writing letters and handing out brochures for the Osceola County Taxpayers Association.”
In his ruling, the judge also announced, “If I had the legal authority I would order punitive damages be paid as well.” He also reportedly announced that if the law permits he may order the sheriff to a take a remedial class in the First Amendment.
I’m not a gun advocate by any means, but I respect the First Amendment and agree with this ruling. Besides, it’s not often we hear such strong sentiments from a longtime federal court jurist. I quite enjoyed them.
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)
Interesting that the decision (as reported here, anyway, makes no mention of the Second Amendment). Nevertheless, good decision. How awful that for so long Minnesotans, and still, so many Americans, were forced to rely on Sheriffs (often like this) for their ability to exercise their rights to bear arms.
The proves that you cannot have one of your rights violated (2nd Amendment) simply because you exercised a different right (1st Amendment) in a way that offends a government official.
Chock one up for the good guys. I plan on adding this story to my blogs tonight.
Patrick and David. The 2nd Amendment is not in question, Door or Dorr (both name listed so I’l use Dorr) was not denied the right to own a firearm but was denied a CCP. Dorr’s 1st Amendment right was being trampled on because of writing letters and handing out brochures. Dorr obviously owns a firearm because a CCP was applied for.