Last week, Carlton Johnson II, 35, shot seven people at a high-rise apartment complex where he lived in downtown Minneapolis. Johnson’s history of violent threats has left many wondering how our laws didn’t prevent Johnson from obtaining a gun. The answer, of course, is that laws don’t prevent violence; actions do.
The shooting
The incident began when Johnson shot and injured his former partner during a child custody exchange, and ended minutes later after Johnson shot six others, including two responding police officers. Two civilian victims died of their injuries, and Johnson died on the ninth floor of the complex after an exchange of gunfire with police.
In the aftermath of the shootings, a great deal of information about Johnson’s threatening behavior has emerged leading many to question how he had been allowed to remain free and to legally carry a firearm. The information highlights the shortcomings of gun control policy – policy that largely infringes on responsible, legal gun owners, while failing to deter offenders from obtaining and using firearms criminally.
Johnson’s history of threats
A variety of reporting has uncovered that Johnson had been charged with two domestic related incidents, one in 2011 for violating a domestic no contact order and one in 2019 for fear of bodily harm. The 2011 charge resulted in a misdemeanor conviction while the 2019 domestic charge was dismissed, and Johnson was convicted of damage to property.
In March 2023, the court issued a restraining order against Johnson preventing him from having contact with the mother of one of Johnson’s children. The woman had petitioned for the order after Johnson had sent her 120 threatening texts including threats to kill her. No criminal charges were ever filed, and the restraining order reportedly expired in early 2026.
In March 2026, Johnson allegedly assaulted a resident of the apartment complex where Johnson lived. The complex management initially sought to terminate Johnson’s lease but ended up entering into a second chance agreement with Johnson.
In April 2026, Johnson applied for and received a permit to carry firearms from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO). The HCSO has defended its decision to issue the permit, despite Johnson’s history of threatening behavior, saying that the law precluded denying Johnson the permit.
“A sheriff’s discretion cannot be used as an end around established legal criteria for issuing permits.”
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Spokesperson to KARE 11
Then, in June 2026, Johnson, while armed with a handgun which he wore in a holster, reportedly threatened to shoot a variety of people living in his apartment complex over several days. During at least one of these incidents, Johnson showed his holstered firearm to the apartment complex security guard. Minneapolis police were called, but it does not appear that Johnson was arrested.
Reports were submitted to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in August, but according to a statement from the HCAO, the office determined there was insufficient evidence to support charges or an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) commonly referred to as a Red Flag order – a civil process that could have resulted in Johnson being ordered to relinquish all firearms to law enforcement.
It is unclear if any of this information was subsequently provided to the Hennepin County Sheriff for consideration in a revocation of Johnson’s permit to carry firearms.
Following the June threats, the apartment management promptly petitioned the court to begin civil eviction proceedings against Johnson. A trial had been scheduled for September 11th.
Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act
In 2003, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Minnesota Citizen’s Personal Protection Act, transforming Minnesota from a “may issue” to a “shall issue” state relevant to permits to carry firearms.
The law tasks county sheriffs with accepting applications, conducting background investigations and determining whether or not applicants qualify for permits to carry. By in large, unless an applicant is legally barred from possessing a firearm through a prior criminal conviction or mental illness commitment, the law mandates that the sheriff “shall issue” the permit. The exception to this rule is laid out in statute 624.714, sub. 6 (3) which allows a sheriff the discretion to deny a permit when,
“…there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit.”
The decision to stand on this provision in denying an applicant a permit is subjective and varies widely among counties – each represented by a different sheriff and county attorney who would have to defend the decision in court if challenged. By law, the sheriff is responsible for all court costs if the court determines the decision to deny the permit was not supported by the facts (another subjective decision).
During my time at the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, I had a significant amount of experience working through the decision-making process in these cases. I know firsthand that the threshold for denying an application based on the “danger to self or others” argument changed over time. Initially, given the firm “shall issue” intent being voiced by the Legislature, we took a very cautious approach and rarely denied an application unless the applicant’s criminal history or mental health commitment record made them outright prohibited from possessing firearms. Over time we became more aggressive in denying permits based on a totality of the circumstances approach – concluding it would be better to be sued by an applicant with a history of threatening behavior and lose, then to issue a permit and have that applicant carry out violence with a firearm we authorized them to carry.
It’s by no means a perfect system, and it puts a great deal of onus on sheriffs and county attorneys, but it’s the system we have and those in positions of authority are paid to make tough decisions.
From my experience, Johnson should have been denied a permit based on the danger to self and others clause of the personal protection act. Even if the permit was originally issued, it’s reasonable for the public to expect the “system” to have promptly shared the information of threatening behavior by Johnson in June, and to expect that the Hennepin County Sheriff and the Hennepin County Attorney would have initiated the permit revocation process as spelled out in the law. The statements from the sheriff’s office and the county attorney come across as defensive and fail to justify the initial issuance or the failure to initiate revocation of Johnson’s permit.
In a rare rebuke of another sheriff, Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher publicly commented on the issuance of Johnson’s permit to carry, and opined that Hennepin County should have denied Johnson’s application. He’s right.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders
In 2023, the DFL led Minnesota Legislature introduced a number of gun control measures, passing legislation authorizing extreme risk protection orders (ERPO’s) and universal background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of those with a documented history of threatening behavior.
DFL leaders hailed the new legislation as measures that would keep Minnesota’s safe from gun violence. Opponents of the legislation suggested that the laws would impact legal and responsible gun ownership but have little impact on criminals’ intent on violence. Cases like Johnson’s support the opponent’s position.
The takeaway
Laws don’t protect the public, action does. We can pass laws until we are blue in the face, but when public safety and the courts fail to act, those laws only impact the law abiding among us.
We need to take the cuffs off law enforcement, demand more of our prosecutors and judges, and support harsher sentences for criminal offenders. This represents a shift towards action – action that would improve public safety far more than the newest round of “words on paper.”
There were plenty of opportunities to derail Johnson or at least put him on defense. It’s wholly appropriate for the public to be fed up with the lack of action on the part of too many public safety actors – folks who need to ratchet up action against criminal offenders, not point to written laws as our savior.
Our public safety leaders might be surprised how much support they’d have if they started ratcheted things up, stopped caving to the activist voices, and got back to removing violent people from society – with swiftness and certainty.
People are tired of crime and violence – they want action.