A Reduced Felony Can Still Cost You Your Gun Rights in Minnesota

What happened in the case

In 2018, Duane Hippe pleaded guilty to threats of violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1. At sentencing, the district court gave him a downward durational departure - instead of a felony-level sentence, he received 365 days with all but four days stayed. By operation of law, that sentence meant his conviction was "deemed" a gross misdemeanor rather than a felony. He even had the conviction expunged in January 2025.

Then, in February 2025, Hippe applied to the Dakota County Sheriff for a permit to carry a pistol. The sheriff denied it, explaining that threats of violence is a "crime of violence," and that a crime of violence makes a person ineligible to possess firearms for life under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2). Hippe asked the district court to order the sheriff to issue the permit, and the district court agreed with him - reasoning that treating him as a felon would undercut the whole point of the downward departure he had been granted.

The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the sheriff was right and the district court was wrong.

Why the court ruled the way it did

The decision turns on a distinction that is easy to miss: the difference between the conviction and the sentence.

Under Minnesota law, a "conviction" happens the moment a court accepts and records a guilty plea. Threats of violence is punishable by up to five years in prison, which makes it a felony by definition - regardless of what sentence is ultimately imposed. So when Hippe's guilty plea was accepted in 2018, he was convicted of a felony crime of violence at that instant.

The statute that "deems" certain felonies to be gross misdemeanors, Minn. Stat. § 609.13, changes how the conviction is treated for sentencing purposes. But it does not erase the fact that the person committed - and was convicted of - a felony-level offense. The Court of Appeals leaned on two Minnesota Supreme Court decisions, State v. Moon and State v. Anderson, which both held that the crime-of-violence analysis looks at the elements of the original offense, not the disposition the judge later chose. As the court put it, the Legislature intended "the nature of the offense rather than the subsequent treatment of the offender" to drive the firearm restriction.

In other words: the downward departure changed Hippe's sentence. It did not change what he was convicted of. And for gun rights, the conviction is what counts.

What this means if you are trying to get a permit to carry

If you have a prior conviction for any offense on Minnesota's "crime of violence" list - threats of violence, many assaults, burglary, certain drug offenses, and others under Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5 - you should assume the lifetime firearm prohibition applies, even if all of the following are true: the judge gave you a break at sentencing, your paperwork says "gross misdemeanor," you never went to prison, and years have passed without incident.

A sheriff does not have discretion to look past a statutory disqualifier. As the sheriff in this case put it, his office "does not have discretion to supersede statutory disqualifiers for firearms possession." So if a crime of violence is in your history, applying for a permit is not the place to discover the problem. The time to understand your firearm eligibility is before you apply - ideally with someone who can pull your actual conviction records and tell you where you stand.

There is sometimes a path back. Minnesota law allows for the restoration of firearm rights in certain circumstances, and an expungement order can, in narrow situations, address firearm consequences - but only if it does so expressly. That brings us to a detail in this case worth flagging.

The expungement wrinkle

Hippe's conviction had actually been expunged. You might think that ends the matter. It did not - and the reason is a quiet trap in the paperwork.

The Court of Appeals noted in a footnote that the expungement order contained a paragraph stating Hippe would remain prohibited from possessing firearms for life if his conviction was for a crime of violence. Because Hippe did not argue that the expungement order itself restored his rights, the court did not have to decide the issue. But the court pointed out something striking: there was "no box to check" next to that prohibition paragraph in the order. The firearm prohibition was simply built into the order's language.

The lesson is that an expungement does not automatically restore firearm rights for a crime of violence. If gun rights matter to you, the expungement order has to address them deliberately and correctly. Assuming an expungement "cleaned everything up" is exactly how people end up surprised.

What this means for plea negotiations

This is the part that matters most to other defense lawyers, and to anyone currently deciding whether to accept a plea offer.

A downward durational departure - taking a felony charge and securing a gross-misdemeanor sentence - is a genuinely good outcome in many cases. It reduces custody exposure, it lowers the conviction level for many purposes, and clients understandably hear it as "I'm not a felon." But Hippe v. Leko is a clear reminder that it does not protect firearm rights when the underlying offense is a crime of violence. The gun consequence attaches to the conviction, and the conviction attaches the moment the plea is accepted.

For a client who hunts, who needs a firearm for work, or who simply cares about keeping that right, this is not a footnote - it can be the single most important consequence of the plea. The practical takeaway is that the firearm consequence has to be part of the plea conversation up front. If keeping gun rights is a priority, the negotiation may need to focus on pleading to a different offense that is not a crime of violence, rather than simply reducing the sentence on a violent charge. A lighter sentence on the wrong charge still costs the client their firearm rights for life.

Good plea negotiation is not only about minimizing jail. It is about understanding every collateral consequence - immigration, employment, housing, and firearm rights among them - and structuring the resolution around the ones the client cares about most.

The bottom line

The level of your sentence and the nature of your conviction are two different things, and Minnesota's firearm laws care about the second one. A reduced felony is still, for gun purposes, a felony crime of violence. If you are facing a charge that qualifies as a crime of violence, or you already have one in your past and you are unsure where your firearm rights stand, it is worth getting a clear answer before you apply for a permit or accept a plea.