State of Minnesota,

1
STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A19-1656

Court of Appeals Thissen, J.

State of Minnesota,

Respondent/Cross-Appellant,

vs. Filed: December 23, 2020
Office of Appellate Courts
Andrew Vernard Glover,

Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
________________________

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County A ttorney, Jonathan P. Schmidt, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent/cross-appellant.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and

Mary F. Moriarty, Chief Hennepin County Public Defender, Paul J. Maravigli, Assistant
Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant/cross-respondent.

________________________
S Y L L A B U S
For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1 (2018), a “firearm” is an instrument
designed for attack or defense that expels a projectile by the action or force of gunpowder,
combustion, or some other explosive force . Because a d istress flare launcher is not such
an instrument, it is not a firearm.
Reversed.

2
O P I N I O N
THISSEN, Justice.
In this case, we are asked to determine whether a distress flare launcher 1 is a
“firearm” under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1 (2018). Because we conclude that the term
“firearm” is limited to weapons , meaning instruments designed for attack or defense, we
hold that a distress flare launcher is not a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1. We
also hold that the court of appeals erroneously concluded that a distress flare launcher
might qualify as a firearm under the statute if used or intended to be used as a weapon. We
therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
FACTS
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On July 9, 2019, an employee of a
Bloomington department store reported to police an in-progress theft of electronics. When
officers arrived, they observed appellant A ndrew Glover inside the store and another
suspect outside the store. The employee told the officers that the two suspects entered the
store, walked into a room ma rked “Employees Only,” opened a locker , and removed
electronics from the locker. It was later determined that Glover and the other suspect had
removed a video gaming system, a cam era, and a photo printer, totaling approximately
$785.97 in value . The officers discovered a distress flare launcher in Glover’s pocket .
Because Glover was previously adjudicated delinquent of a “crime of violence ,” he is
prohibited from possessing a firearm. See Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2).

1 Although the parties use different terms when referring to the device at issue , we
will refer to the device as a “distress flare launcher.”

3
Glover was charged with aiding and a betting burglary in the third d egree, in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 (2018); possession of burglary or theft tools, in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.59 (2018); and, at issue here, possession of a firearm by an
ineligible person, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, su bd. 1(2). Glover moved to
dismiss this last charge for lack of probable cause, arguing that a distress flare launcher is
not a “firearm” as a matter of law. The State countered that the distress flare launcher is a
firearm because any “device that expels a projectile by the action or force of an explosion
or combustion” meets the definition of a “firearm” under our holding in State v. Haywood,
886 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2016).
The district c ourt held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was
sufficient probable cause to support the ineligible person in possession of a firearm charge.
The State presented testimony from a firearms e xpert who testified that a distress fl are
launcher propels a projectile by use of explosive force. The firearms expert also testified
that, according to the manufacturer of the distress flare launcher, such a device has two
potential purposes: signaling others for assistance and ensuring that firefighters can ignite
wildfires. Following this hearing, the district court granted Glover’s motion.
The State appealed and the court of appeals reversed. State v. Glover, 945 N.W.2d
60, 68 (Minn. App. 2020) , rev. granted (Minn. June 30, 2020) . The court of appeals
rejected the State’s argument that a “firearm” includes any device that expels a projectile
by the action or force of an explosion or combustion , concluding that a “firearm” must be
a “weapon.” Id. at 66. But the court of appeals also held that a distress flare launcher could
be a “firearm” under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, if the factfinder were to conclude that

4
Glover used or intended to use it as a weapon. Id. at 67. Thus, the court of appeals reversed
the district court’s order and remanded the case to the district court for factual findings on
Glover’s intended use of the distress flare launcher. Id. (“[A] fact issue remains concerning
whether [Glover] intended to use the [distress] flare launcher as a weapon . . . [which] . . .
is a question of fact for resolution at trial.”).
Glover filed a petition for review, challenging the court of appeals’ holding that the
distress flare launcher could be a firearm . The State filed a conditional cross-petition for
review, challenging the court of appeals’ use-or-intended-use element in its analysis of the
term “firearm.” We granted both the petition and cross-petition.
ANALYSIS
We first turn to the question of whether a distress flare launcher is a “firearm” under
Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1 . Our inquiry turns on the statutory meaning of the term
“firearm.” We review questions of st atutory interpretation de novo. Haywood, 886
N.W.2d at 488.
We “interpret statutory language to ‘ascertain and effectuate ’ the Legislature’s
intent.” State v. Bowen, 921 N.W.2d 763, 765 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16
(2018)). “If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous
language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning . . . .” State v. Rick,
835 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. 2013).
Glover was charged under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, which, in relevant part,
provides:

5
The following persons shall not be entitled to possess ammunition or a pistol
or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or . . . any other firearm: . . .
(2) . . . a person who has been convicted of, or adjudicated delinquent
or convicted as an extended jurisdiction juvenile for committing, in this state
or elsewhere, a crime of violence . For purposes of this section, crime of
violence includes crimes in other states or jurisdictions which would have
been crimes of violence as herein defined if they had been committed in this
state[.]

Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (emphasis added).
Because t he statute does not define the term “firearm,” we may look to other
interpretive tools to determine its meaning , including dictionary definitions . State v.
Prigge, 907 N.W.2d 635 , 638 (Minn. 2018 ) (stating that “[i] f a statute does not define a
word or phrase,” we may “look to the dictionary definitions of th[e] words and apply them
in the context of the statute” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Merriam-Webster defines “firearm” as a “weapon from which a shot is discharged
by gunpowder.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 471 (11th ed. 2014).
Webster’s defines “firearm” as a “small arms weapon, as a rifle o r pistol, from which a
projectile is fired by gunpowder.” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language
722 (2d ed. 1987). The American Heritage Dictionary defines “firearm” as a “weapon,
especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a
propellant.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 661 (5th ed.
2011). Black’s Law Dictionary defines “firearm” as a “weapon that expels a projectile
(such as a bullet or pellets) by the combustion of gunpowder or other explosive.” Firearm,

6
Black’s Law Dictiona ry (9th ed. 2009). 2 Instructively, these dictionaries define the term
“firearm” as a “weapon.”
The State does not offer an alternative dictionary definition to support its claim that
a firearm need not be a weapon. Rather, the State contends that we already defined the
term “firearm” in Haywood as simply any “device” that “expels a projectile by the action
or force of an explosion or combustion .” In support of this argument, the State points to
one sentence in Haywood where we stated, “[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of the word
‘firearm’ includes only devices that require explosive force.” 886 N.W.2d at 490. 3 As
long as the instrument in question meets this functional definition, the State argues, it is a
firearm regardless of whether it is a weapon. Because it is undisputed that Glover’s distress
flare launcher uses explosive force, the State continues, it meets the definition of “firearm”
as set out in Haywood. The State misunderstands our holding in Haywood.
The issue before us in Haywood was not whether a “firearm” must be a weapon .
Rather, the issue before us in Haywood was whether a BB gun that used “compressed air,”
and not “gunpowder” or some other “explosive force,” was a “firearm” under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.165, subd. 1 (2014). 886 N.W.2d at 489 –90 (stating “[w]e . . . hold that an air -

2 In Haywood, we consulted dictionary definitions in our discussion. 886 N.W.2d at
490. There, we considered whether the term “firearm,” as used in Minn. Stat. § 609.165,
subd. 1(b)(a) (2018), includes BB guns, which do not expel a projectile by the action or
force of an explosion or combustion. Haywood, 886 N.W.2d at 490.

3 Notably, in the same paragraph , we also stated: “I n sum, dictionaries consistently
define ‘firearm’ as including only weapons that use explosive force.” Haywood, 886
N.W.2d at 490 (emphasis added) (listing four dictionary definitions of “firearm” that use
the term “weapon”).

7
powered BB gun is not a firearm”). We did not consider or decide whether a device must
be a weapon to be a “firearm.” Today, we conclude that a device must be a weapon to be
a “firearm” under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1.4
We next turn to the question of whether the distress flare launcher is a weapon . A
weapon is ordinarily understood to be an instrument designed for attack or defense. See
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1961 (5th ed. 2011) (“[An]
instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.”); see also Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1417 (11th ed. 2014) (“[A] means of contending against
another[.]”); Weapon, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) ( “An instrument used or
designed to be used to injure or kill someone.”).
Here, t he record establishes that the distress flare launcher is not an instrument
designed for attack or defense. The firearms expert testified that , according to the
manufacturer, the distress flare launcher has two potential purposes: signaling others for
assistance and ensuring that firefighters can ignite wildfires. Moreover, the State concedes
that the distress flare launcher here was “designed to be used in emergency situations as
[an] alert mechanism[].” Accordingly, we hold that the distress flare launcher here is not
a weapon and, thus, cannot be a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1.5

4 The State argues that this conclusion impermissibly adds the word “weapon” into
the statute. We disagree. We simply construe the unambiguous term “firearm” based on
its plain meaning.

5 Glover argues that LaMere v. State , 278 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1979) compels the
conclusion that, to be a firearm, a device must be “designed or manufactured as a firearm.”
Glover’s argument is incorrect. LaMere simply holds that a firearm is still a firearm and,

8
Our conclusion is also supported by other clues drawn from the statutory text .
Words in a statute are best understood in the light of their context. Bowen, 921 N.W.2d at
765. Notably, the statute here is a possession statute; not a use or intended use statute. See
Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1 (“The following persons shall not be entitled to possess . . .
any other firearm[.]” (emphasis added)). In such a context, it seems odd for the Legislature
to prohibit Minnesotans from even possessing devices—like a distress flare launcher—for
which the primary use is safety, rather than to attack or defend. Indeed, under such logic,
Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, would prohibit an ineligible person from possessing many
common items not designed as weapons, such as fireworks.6

therefore, a “dangerous weapon,” even if there is “some mechanical defect which render s
it temporarily inoperable.” Id. at 556. LaMere does not directly answer the question before
us here.

6 Citing State v. Seifert, the State urges us to interpret the term “firearm” broadly to
include distress flare launchers . 256 N.W.2d 87, 88 (Minn . 1977) (“Having statutory
purpose in mind, we think that [the term “firearm” in Minn. Stat. § 609.02 (1974)] should
be defined broadly to include guns using newer types of . . . propellants and should not be
restricted in meaning guns using [only] gunpowder.”). We decline to do so. In Seifert, we
interpreted the term “firearm” as used to define a “dangerous weapon” in a different statute,
Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6. 256 N.W.2d at 88. We looked beyond the plain language
of the multi -pronged “dangerous weapon” definition to its purpose. Because we decide
this case on the plain meaning of the term “firearm” as used in Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd.
1, we need not resort to a canon of broad construction here. We do not construe the term
“firearm” broadly or narrowly; we simply interpret the term. In any event, in Haywood,
we stated that the language in Seifert suggesting that the word “firearm” should be
interpreted broadly was dicta. 886 N.W.2d at 490 n.3. Indeed, in Haywood, we adopted a
more limited meaning of the term “firearm.” Id. at 490 (adopting the narrower
interpretation that a BB gun is not a firearm rather than the broader interpretation that a BB
gun is a firearm).

9
To summarize, for purposes of the possession offense set forth in Minn. Stat.
§ 624.713, subd. 1, we hold that a “firearm” is a weapon, that is, an instrument designed
for attack or defense, that expels a projectile by the action or force of gunpowder,
combustion, or some other explosive force.
The State alternatively argues that, even if a device must be a weapon to be a
firearm, the distress flare launcher may still be a firearm if the factfinder concludes that
Glover’s actual use “weaponized” the distress flare launcher. In other words , the State
asserts that it can prove a defendant illegally possessed a firearm under Minn. Stat.
§ 624.713, subd. 1, in one of two ways: the defendant possessed a weapon or the defendant
possessed a device that transformed into a weapon by the defendant’s situational use or
intended use.7 Based on the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, we reject the
State’s argument.
Once again, Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, establishes a possession crime, not a
crime based on a defendant’s use or intended use. Id. (“The following persons shall not be
entitled to possess . . . any other firearm [.]” (emphasis added) ). The Legislature did not
use the phrase “use or intend to use” in the statute. Nothing in the plain text of the statute
suggests that the Legislature intended a device, which is not a weapon , could be
transformed into a weapon by its situational or intended use.

7 The State filed a conditional cross -petition for review , arguing that the court of
appeals erroneously adopted a “used or intended to be use d” element to its interpretation
of the term “firearm.” We hold today that a defendant’s use or intended use of a device as
a weapon is not relevant to the question of whether an instrument is a “firearm” under
section 624.713. Accordingly, our holding resolves the State’s cross-petition as well.

10
The Legislature knows how to define a device by its use or intended use when it
desires to do so. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (2018) (defining “dangerous
weapon” to include “any . . . device or instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or
intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm” (emphasis
added)). Accepting the State’s alternative argument would require us to add the words “or
another device that was used or intended to be used as a weapon” to the plain language of
Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1. That we cannot do. State v. Carufel, 783 N.W.2d 539, 545
(Minn. 2010) (“[C]ourt[s] cannot add words to a statute not supplied by the legislature.”).
The State’s position—that it is unsafe to allow persons convicted of crimes of
violence to carry distress flare launchers around in their pockets —is not unreasonable.
Determining what devices persons convicted of crimes of violence should not possess is a
matter of public policy, however. Accordingly, it is a question for the Legislature, not this
court. Mattson v. Flynn, 13 N.W.2d 11, 16 (Minn. 1944) ( stating that questions of public
policy are for the Legislature and not the courts).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
Reversed.