Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Minnesota Gun Law Reform Signed by Governor Dayton

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Minnesota Gun Law Reform Signed by Governor Dayton

    Under the new law, SF 878, Minnesotans will be able to legally purchase and own gun mufflers if they do so under the restrictions of federal law. It is a step forward.

    The law limits the ability of authorities to confiscate firearms during designated emergencies.

    The possession of a permit to carry now constitutes the notification required to cary in court houses and certain state buildings. People with a permit will not havfe to notify authorities in advance of their carrying in those areas.

    Minnesota residents may now purchase firearms in any state in which it is allowed by that state's law and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    Recognition of permits from other states is changed from a list of states with "subtantially similar" permit laws, to recognizing all state permits except those that are *not* "similar", with the list of those which are not similar to be published on the Internet by the Commissioner of Public Safety. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor. The list of states that are not similar must be published anually. The law goes into effect on 1 August, so we shall see if the Commissioner publishes a list before that date.

    These reforms passed with considerable bipartisan support, and with large, veto proof margins. Governor Dayton said that he would veto the gun reforms, but they were attached to an appropriations bill. He would have shut down the State if he vetoed it as stated, so he signed the bill, and took credit for it instead.


    2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
    Link to Gun Watch

    Addenum: If a list of states that are *not* similar is not published, then all permits will be recognized. The law places the burden on the Commissioner, not on the permit holders.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05...signed-by.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    What does this mean for out of state visitors?

    Now that this law has passed how soon can we expect to see a new list of recognized permits be published? Will Iowa permits be recognized?

    What concerns me about the "clarification" that was supposedly made to recognition of permits to carry issued outside of Minnesota doesn't seem to clarify anything at all. It appears it could be interpreted to REDUCE the number of states recognized. I realize that no one reading this may have any more information than what was published but I also suspect that many have the same questions as I.

    Here's a question that someone might be able to answer, when is the list of state permits recognized typically updated? Law requires an annual review of state laws that might affect the states recognized, I assume this is done about the same time every year.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Sounds like some sound progress on the carry front. I'm happy for all the MN law abiding citizens. MO CCW is already recognized in MN and hope that doesn't change.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Regular Member robdoar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    Now that this law has passed how soon can we expect to see a new list of recognized permits be published? Will Iowa permits be recognized?

    What concerns me about the "clarification" that was supposedly made to recognition of permits to carry issued outside of Minnesota doesn't seem to clarify anything at all. It appears it could be interpreted to REDUCE the number of states recognized. I realize that no one reading this may have any more information than what was published but I also suspect that many have the same questions as I.

    Here's a question that someone might be able to answer, when is the list of state permits recognized typically updated? Law requires an annual review of state laws that might affect the states recognized, I assume this is done about the same time every year.
    All that happened was a slight lessening of the similarity to MN requirenent. Right now, ND is the main objective. Hopefully more will follow, but knowing the chief counsel for MN DPS, I wouldn't hold your breath.
    Political Director - MN Gun Owners Caucus/PAC
    NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shotshell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
    Certified Glock Armorer - Permit to Carry Instructor - Aegis Outdoors

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Things that make you go hmmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by robdoar View Post
    Right now, ND is the main objective.
    I assumed that was the case considering how much I've seen this be an issue. No estimate on when the updated list is published? The law goes into effect August 1st, correct? I'd assume the list would be updated by then or shortly after.

    I recall someone describing the issue as the "Red River Problem", as neither North Dakota or Minnesota recognized the carry permits issued by the other. I have little doubt that Utah made a lot of money as a solution to that problem. This seems to be an issue on both sides of the Red River but I just have to wonder a bit, why is North Dakota permit recognition so much more a priority than any of Minnesota's other neighbors? Did not visitors from Iowa, South Dakota, and Wisconsin also complain? With Minnesota recognizing only a dozen or so state permits I'd think there would be a lot of people complaining.

    Why people complained does not matter as much as the results. Well done Minnesota!

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    I have little doubt that Utah made a lot of money as a solution to that problem.
    Utah made as close to zero money from issuing permits to non-residents as we could possibly manage to discern. Our permit costs have always been kept as close to "break even" as we could figure break even was. There are a few folks at Utah BCI who have jobs processing permits who would not have jobs were it not for some 300,000 currently valid non-resident permits. Beyond that, our permit fees have been revenue neutral. We have accepted permits from all US jurisdictions, and issued permits quite freely to non-residents for the simple reason that Utah's gun activists and our legislators believed it was the right thing to do. In some cases, doing so has caused us some heartburn, which lead to the necessity of requiring non-residents who live in States that recognize the Utah permit to get a home State permit first.

    I believe I've explained this to you in the past, IA_farmboy. Please do not continue to mis-represent the financial impact of carry permits to the Utah budget.

    To the topic of the thread:

    My congratulations to Minnesota for these steps in the right direction.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I believe I've explained this to you in the past, IA_farmboy. Please do not continue to mis-represent the financial impact of carry permits to the Utah budget.
    Yes, you have described this to me in the past and I have two possible responses, you can pick whichever one suits you. The first response is a simple one, I don't believe you.

    A longer response, though not necessarily conflicting with the first, is that non-resident permits are subsidizing the resident permits. 300,000 permits times the $40+ per permit is a lot of money. With any product there are two costs that must be part of the equation that determines the per unit cost, fixed costs and incremental costs. There is a cost in merely having a permit system, regardless of how many permits are issued or if any are issued at all. Incremental costs are how much additional cost there is for each additional product, typically this is the cost of materials. With each additional product produced the fixed cost becomes a smaller portion of the total cost of each product produced. A quick Google search gives me a Salt Lake Tribune article that tells me that roughly 70% of Utah permits are issued to non-residents. That means a lot of out of state money goes to pay the fixed cost of the Utah permit system, making the permit cheaper for those in Utah.

    Further evidence of Utah making money on the deal is the hoops they jump through to make sure that as many people from out of state can and will get their permit. If it was merely a matter of regulating the carry of dangerous weapons for residents and visitors to Utah then we would not have seen the unusual step of having residents of some states be required to provide proof of being licensed in their own state before being allowed to apply for a Utah permit. I see this as a very conscious effort to maximize the number of applicants from out of state.

    You can tell me that Utah is merely offering a service out of the kindness of their hearts and make no money from it but I have my own theory. You can take my simple answer that I don't believe you or you can take my more complex response that Utah is using that money to subsidize something. If what you say is true that Utah make no net income from the licenses then Utahans benefit from cheaper permits for themselves. It is also possible that this money is being used to subsidize something else. That something else may be potentially hundreds of jobs processing all the applications that come in from out of state.

    That was a longer response than what I intended but I think it needed to be said somewhere. I maintain that Utah makes money, or otherwise benefits, from having their permits issued to as many people as possible. If you choose to "correct" me in the future then I'll try to be more brief.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    There is huge money in issuing permits when one sets the costs it is easy to say one is not making any money but the numbers tell the truth.

    40 x 300000 = 120,000,000 is a lot of money

    The state of Wis. was bringing in so much money they lowered the permit costs and that was just from residences permits.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 05-30-2015 at 08:15 AM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    There is huge money in issuing permits when one sets the costs it is easy to say one is not making any money but the numbers tell the truth.

    40 x 300000 = 120,000,000 is a lot of money

    The state of Wis. was bringing in so much money they lowered the permit costs and that was just from residences permits.
    Check your math. 12m not 120m.

  10. #10
    Regular Member robdoar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    I assumed that was the case considering how much I've seen this be an issue. No estimate on when the updated list is published? The law goes into effect August 1st, correct? I'd assume the list would be updated by then or shortly after.

    I recall someone describing the issue as the "Red River Problem", as neither North Dakota or Minnesota recognized the carry permits issued by the other. I have little doubt that Utah made a lot of money as a solution to that problem. This seems to be an issue on both sides of the Red River but I just have to wonder a bit, why is North Dakota permit recognition so much more a priority than any of Minnesota's other neighbors? Did not visitors from Iowa, South Dakota, and Wisconsin also complain? With Minnesota recognizing only a dozen or so state permits I'd think there would be a lot of people complaining.

    Why people complained does not matter as much as the results. Well done Minnesota!
    Minnesota Law requires DPS (Dept. Public Safety ) to enter into agreements with states that have issuing standards "similar" to Minnesota. (Before this bill, it was "substantially similar ")

    WI and IA do not require a specific permit class, or a shooting qualification, so DPS will never enter an agreement with them.

    North Dakota actually created a whole new 2nd teir permit system to match MN requirements, but DPS council nit picked and found 1 slight difference, and refused to sign off on a reciprocity agreement. (Apparently at his law school "substantially similar " meant "exactly the same")

    The bill initially carved out ND as a special exemption to respond to the DPS' inaction. I didn't like that, and DPS hated it. When I met with their counsel, he stated that loosing "substantial" from the law would allow him more leniency in evaluating other states, and certainly ND.

    I'd much rather have universal recognition, or better yet constitutional carry, but that dog won't hunt with our administration and senate.
    Last edited by robdoar; 05-31-2015 at 08:01 AM.
    Political Director - MN Gun Owners Caucus/PAC
    NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shotshell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
    Certified Glock Armorer - Permit to Carry Instructor - Aegis Outdoors

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    If they do not publish a list, All state permits are accepted, correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by robdoar View Post
    Minnesota Law requires DPS (Dept. Public Safety ) to enter into agreements with states that have issuing standards "similar" to Minnesota. (Before this bill, it was "substantially similar ")

    WI and IA do not require a specific permit class, or a shooting qualification, so DPS will never enter an agreement with them.

    North Dakota actually created a whole new 2nd teir permit system to match MN requirements, but DPS council nit picked and found 1 slight difference, and refused to sign off on a reciprocity agreement. (Apparently at his law school "substantially similar " meant "exactly the same")

    The bill initially carved out ND as a special exemption to respond to the DPS' inaction. I didn't like that, and DPS hated it. When I met with their counsel, he stated that loosing "substantial" from the law would allow him more leniency in evaluating other states, and certainly ND.

    I'd much rather have universal recognition, or better yet constitutional carry, but that dog won't hunt with our administration and senate.
    It seems that there might be grounds for a suit, if the Commissioner makes the claim that most states are *not* similar. Here is the paragraph from the law:

    Subd. 16.
    Recognition of permits from other states.

    (a) The commissioner must annually establish and publish a list of other states that have laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that are not similar to this section. The list must be available on the Internet. A person holding a carry permit from a state not on the list may use the license or permit in this state subject to the rights, privileges, and requirements of this section.


    It is a reversal of the old law, in that now, states are presumed to be recognized, unless the Commissioner says they are *not* similar, so it seems the burden of proof is on the commissioner.

    Do you think that the Commissioner will list most states as *not* similar?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155
    40 x 300000 = 120,000,000 is a lot of money ... just from residences permits.
    Quote Originally Posted by BU1 View Post
    Check your math. 12m not 120m.
    And Wisconsin does not issue a residential permit.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-31-2015 at 09:30 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by robdoar View Post
    I'd much rather have universal recognition, or better yet constitutional carry, but that dog won't hunt with our administration and senate.
    I recall this bill being reported as requiring universal recognition. Either I recall incorrectly or the bill language was changed. This might mean that permits from Iowa and Wisconsin are not recognized but it should mean more states are recognized, more than just the dozen or so that are recognized now. If DPS does not act on the spirit of the law, and sees the letter of the law as effectively unchanged, then I expect this issue will be revisited by the legislature next session. If or when this issue comes up again then I expect to see a less ambiguous, and more liberating, language replace it. That would mean unambiguous universal recognition and/or constitutional carry. I'd be pleased if Iowa permits were recognized but still happy if we saw something like Florida permits recognized.

    Which brings me to ranting on Utah again. I did my own math on Utah permits. Assuming only $15 renewals issued every five years for the 500,000 permits currently issued that means an income of $1,500,000 per year. For a state with less than three million people that is a lot of money for the Utah BCI. No doubt that a large portion of that goes towards the cost of issuing permits. That still leaves a few percent that can be put towards staff and infrastructure. I've worked for small government agencies before. If, for example, I saw my IT budget go up by just 0.1% of the total coming in from these permits I'd be grinning ear to ear. That means one new server, a new Ethernet switch, or three new desktop systems. Then you told me I can do that again next year? Wow.

    I don't know what the Utah BCI budget is. Judging by how high Utah jumped when Texas threatened to drop recognition of the Utah permit if they didn't change the rules I suspect it to be a good sized chunk. The people that process these applications likely do things other than just process applications. It is also likely these people share resources with other parts of BCI. That money coming in from permits could mean things like metal detectors for the state prisons, a new cruiser for the highway patrol, or the upgrade to computer systems like I mentioned before. With Texas having a population of 30 million I'd guess that Utah permits break down roughly like this, 1/3 residents, 1/3 Texans, 1/3 all other non-residents.

    I have to wonder if Utah BCI has some sort of lobby or advertising group with the mandate to "sell" their permits in other states. It seems odd that Utah permit classes grew to such number in such a short time after Iowa got it's shall issue law.

    I'll make a prediction. Utah will ride this gravy train as long as it can. Once it becomes apparent that their permit system will go from a profit center to a loss then Utah will go to constitutional carry and issue permits only to residents, if they issue them at all. That will come when there are a sufficient number of shall issue or constitutional carry states, or if there is a federal law requiring resident permit recognition.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    I think you mean that Wisconsin does not issue permits to non-residents

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    And Wisconsin does not issue a residential permit.
    I wish that Wisconsin would issue permits to non-residents. They could compete for a good bit of that non-resident money.

    But, I do not think that they do. I believe that you have to be a resident to apply for a permit.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    I wish that Wisconsin would issue permits to non-residents. They could compete for a good bit of that non-resident money.
    While removing the need for one to have a permit to exercise the right of self defense would certainly be ideal, it would be helpful if a state is going to require a permit that they allow all that visit the means to get a permit. I see many states that do not issue to non-residents and also have no or very limited recognition of out of state permits. Imagine the outrage if this was the case for licenses for things like driving or marriage licenses.

    I see this question a lot, "We license people to drive cars, why shouldn't we license people that carry deadly weapons?" First off I disagree with the premise that we should be licensing people to drive but lets set aside the issues of needing a license for either for now. Assuming we license the carrying of weapons like we do for cars then we should be able to assume two things, that anyone that meets the requirements to get a license obligates the state to issue a license (shall issue), and a license issued in any state is recognized in all states. Of course those same people that claim we need to issue permits for weapons like we do for cars don't actually believe what they say, the thought of shall issue licenses and universal recognition keep them up at night.

    Speaking of cashing in on non-resident money for out of state permits I thought I'd look up how Florida compares to Utah in permits issued. Turns out that the Florida Department of Agriculture has 1.5 million currently valid permits issued. This is for a state of about 20 million people. Compare with Utah with about 500,000 permits and a population of about 3 million. Florida has about 10% of permits issued to non-residents, Utah about 70%. If my math is correct Utah issues twice as many permits to non-residents as Florida. That is amazing to me.

    I thought about getting a Minnesota permit to carry but no one offers that training around here, or at least didn't the last time I checked. Yet I can find plenty that will offer Utah and Florida classes. It would be nice if more states offered permits through the mail like Utah and Florida do, competition is a good thing. As Utah has found out it can bring in some money.

  16. #16
    Regular Member robdoar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    I recall this bill being reported as requiring universal recognition. Either I recall incorrectly or the bill language was changed.
    That language was never in this bill.
    Political Director - MN Gun Owners Caucus/PAC
    NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shotshell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
    Certified Glock Armorer - Permit to Carry Instructor - Aegis Outdoors

  17. #17
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    This is the language in the Engrossed version of the bill

    Quote Originally Posted by robdoar View Post
    That language was never in this bill.

    Subd. 16.
    Recognition of permits from other states.

    (a) The commissioner must annually establish and publish a list of other states that have laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that are not similar to this section. The list must be available on the Internet. A person holding a carry permit from a state not on the list may use the license or permit in this state subject to the rights, privileges, and requirements of this section.

    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), no license or permit from another state is valid in this state if the holder is or becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.

    (c) Any sheriff or police chief may file a petition under subdivision 12 seeking an order suspending or revoking an out-of-state permit holder's authority to carry a pistol in this state on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3). An order shall only be issued if the petitioner meets the burden of proof and criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable costs and expenses including attorney fees. The petition may be filed in any county in the state where a person holding a license or permit from another state can be found.

    (d) The commissioner must, when necessary, execute reciprocity agreements regarding carry permits with jurisdictions whose carry permits are recognized under paragraph (a).

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?yea...=Chapter&id=65


    Is it your understanding that if the commissioner does not make a list, then other state's permits become recognized in Minnesota?
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 06-01-2015 at 09:17 PM. Reason: copy errors editing

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    Is it your understanding that if the commissioner does not make a list, then other state's permits become recognized in Minnesota?
    Yes, I agree that if the commissioner does not make a list then permits issued by any state are recognized. The question I had is if universal recognition was required vs. merely optional or perhaps encouraged.

    I recalled that news reports stated that universal recognition was in the bill. Either I recalled incorrectly or the news report I read was in error. As I see no evidence that universal recognition was offered as a bill this year I will assume I recalled incorrectly.

    I will just have to wait and see what the commissioner decides on permit recognition. It will be interesting to see what criteria the commissioner uses to decide which permits to recognize.

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Maybe the commissioner will do nothing...

    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    Yes, I agree that if the commissioner does not make a list then permits issued by any state are recognized. The question I had is if universal recognition was required vs. merely optional or perhaps encouraged.

    I recalled that news reports stated that universal recognition was in the bill. Either I recalled incorrectly or the news report I read was in error. As I see no evidence that universal recognition was offered as a bill this year I will assume I recalled incorrectly.

    I will just have to wait and see what the commissioner decides on permit recognition. It will be interesting to see what criteria the commissioner uses to decide which permits to recognize.
    It seems to me that she only has until 1 August to come up with a list.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •