Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Weapons Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Isanti council to remove personnel-language that could authorize employees to carry firearms after attorney cites Minnesota statute
Summary
After reviewing attorney guidance citing Minnesota Statute 626.84, the council agreed to strike personnel-policy language that could be interpreted as authorizing employees to carry firearms; police department policies for sworn officers and reserve liabilities will be handled separately and staff will bring revised language back after counsel review.
Council members reviewed the city’s personnel-policy language on possession and use of dangerous weapons after receiving attorney guidance about state preemption. The attorney’s cited law — Minnesota Statute 626.84, subdivision 2 — says municipalities may not authorize employees to carry a firearm while on duty unless the individual is a licensed peace officer; a council member read the statute aloud to the group.
"Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no individual employed by any political subdivision shall be authorized to carry a firearm while on duty unless the individual has been licensed as a peace officer," a council member read from the attorney’s summary of Minnesota Statute 626.84, subd. 2.
Council members and staff debated whether leaving the city personnel policy silent or retaining an express prohibition was preferable. One council member said the city should “strike it from the policy” to avoid language that could be read as authorizing carrying, and other members expressed agreement that state statute preempts municipal authorization. A council member summarized the approach as staying neutral: "If you have a valid permit to carry, you should be able to carry," one speaker said while other members emphasized the state controls authorization.
Chief Myers (police chief) raised concerns about liability and reserve officers, noting police policy and personnel policy serve different purposes and that reserve officers or non-licensed personnel may require department-level policy protections. Staff and council agreed the personnel-policy section titled "possession or use of dangerous weapons" (which includes a broad definition beyond firearms) should be removed so it does not implicitly prohibit or authorize firearms contrary to state statute; the wording had been modeled on League of Minnesota Cities language.
Why it matters: the change avoids creating a municipal policy that could conflict with state law and reduces legal risk. It also preserves department-level policies that define who in the police department is authorized to carry while on duty.
Next steps: staff will strike the specified language from the personnel policy, research statutory implications, and work with city counsel to ensure the final wording preserves police-policy protections while avoiding a conflict with state statute.
