-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Don't get MN & FL permits.
- Thread starter BROKENSPROKET
- Start date
davegran
Regular Member
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
Utah is $10 and a current passport sized photo....
It's $15 now.
UT + AZ renewal combined is still cheaper than FL alone.
Last edited:
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
Another reason to wait and see.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7072
If this law passes we could see no need for an out of state permit. I'm not sure I like this bill since it essentially endorses a state power to license a right but it does allow for every law abiding citizen to stop having to play "concealed carry Bingo" when they travel.
There is also a bill in Minnesota for universal recognition. I believe it died this session in the Senate after being passed in the House but it will come back next session.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6829
Just wait and see on what comes of these bills if you can.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7072
If this law passes we could see no need for an out of state permit. I'm not sure I like this bill since it essentially endorses a state power to license a right but it does allow for every law abiding citizen to stop having to play "concealed carry Bingo" when they travel.
There is also a bill in Minnesota for universal recognition. I believe it died this session in the Senate after being passed in the House but it will come back next session.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6829
Just wait and see on what comes of these bills if you can.
jpm84092
Regular Member
Arizona Permit
Applied by mail on August 9, 2011
Permit arrived today, September 16, 2011
Applied by mail on August 9, 2011
Permit arrived today, September 16, 2011
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
That is the longest time I have seen yet. Must be completely inundated with applications...maybe I should stop pushing the AZ permit for awhile.
M
McX
Guest
Arizona permit huh? didnt think on that one. something to add to the wallet, lest i have a sudden shortage, or something like that. so what's the details, links and all that there................
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Arizona is the now the premier non-resident permit and it's best companion is a non-resident Utah.
And I really like this site: http://www.usacarry.com/ It's where I did all be my research from. It's alot better than handgunlaw.us
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
Yep...AZ + UT renewals combined are cheaper then FL by itself.
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
Getting a MN permit is cheaper than getting AZ and UT permits.
What is the goal here? Why are people in Wisconsin getting out of state permits? I'm assuming the primary concern is carrying a tool of self defense into MN. If that is the case then why not get the MN permit? Minnesota does not require the photos and fingerprints like UT. Add in the cost of the fingerprinting and the photos then the MN permit is actually cheaper than the UT permit. I'm assuming the training costs are identical. If one must add in the cost of handing in the permit in person in MN as a consideration of the cost then I have to ask, if the driving to MN is a concern in applying for the permit do you travel to MN often enough that you'd even need the permit?
Again, what is the goal? There is no one size fits all solution here.
Another goal stated, besides gaining the authority to carry weapons as one travels, is to reward those states with our money for their recognition of our right of self defense. Personally I find needing to pay a fee to the state to have their permission to exercise my right of self defense as being an insult. If one wishes to show they do not wish to give money to those that infringe on their rights then I see buying their permission to exercise one's right of self defense to be counter productive or perhaps hypocritical. I'd think the best tactic toward that end is to buy as few of these permits as one can while still acting within the law while bearing the tools of self defense.
Also, by not buying these out of state permits one has more money to buy ammunition.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
It seems that you think that Minnesota is the only state that Wiconsinites ever go to. IF that was true, I woulld agree with you. But the truth is, some of us travel to states all acrosss the country. And for those that do, for a Wisconsin resident, AZ. UT and WI permits is the best combination to carry in the most states and also happens to be cheaper.
I cannot say this is true for Iowa, because I have not looked into and I don't care to.
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
No, I don't believe that Minnesota is the only state that Wisconsinites will go to. However, looking at a map I can see that there are four states that Wisconsin shares a border, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan. If someone is going to travel by land one will have to cross one of these states. When it comes to Iowa and Illinois any permit is just as good (or bad) as any other since Iowa recognizes all permits and Illinois denies all non-LEOs the ability to carry a weapon lawfully. Michigan recognizes only resident permits. That leaves Minnesota, with their spotty recognition of other state permits as the wild card in this discussion. I am merely recognizing the importance of that one state in the travel plans of Wisconsin residents.
If one is assuming domestic travel by land then the only real state of concern is Minnesota. The other states are one sentence answers.
Iowa: Pick a permit, any permit will do.
Michigan: Get the Wisconsin resident permit.
Illinois: Forget about it.
If one is traveling beyond the immediate neighbors of Wisconsin the residents of Wisconsin can enjoy traveling while lawfully armed in 20+ other states that recognize the MN permit. If we also assume that Wisconsin residents that wish to travel while armed will get the Wisconsin resident permit then one can add resident only states like Florida, Michigan, and Colorado to the discussion. Traveling TO many states from Wisconsin will likely involve travel THROUGH Minnesota.
If one adds travel by air or water then I guess we can diminish the need to get recognition in Minnesota. If that is the case then why emphasize the need for a UT permit AND the AZ permit? One or the other should do nicely. Unless we are certain of the destination of the Wisconsinite in question then we cannot say for certain which permit the person will need. If one is traveling by air to either New York or California then there is no benefit to getting an out of state permit since in that case only the nearly impossible to obtain non-resident permits of those respective states are recognized.
I also dispute your claim of the UT permit being cheaper. Minnesota does not require photos and fingerprints to get a permit while Utah does. Last I checked the price for passport style photos is around $15. The fees for fingerprinting around here is also about $15. So add that up...
UT permit fee: $65
Fingerprinting: $15
Photos: $15
Total: $95
MN permit fee: statutorily limited to no more than $100
Total: $0 - $100
If the claim is correct that some sheriffs charge as little as $50 for the state permit then the MN permit looks like a really good deal.
If one is looking to enhance their bang/buck ratio then one should consider which states they are traveling to and through before deciding. Since we are discussing travel into and out of Wisconsin then Minnesota is very likely going to be one state of concern.
Brokensprocket, it seems to me that you have already decided what is the best non-resident permits for all residents of Wisconsin. What I am saying is that people need to do their research for their own particular situation. I'm also saying that the MN permit looks like a real good deal even when compared to AZ and UT.
All three states (UT, AZ, and MN) require training before a permit is issued. I can see from my own research in those offering training for concealed weapons that just about every one is licensed to offer training for all three states. Therefore the training costs should not be of a concern, especially if one is seeking training for a Wisconsin permit as well since most every person licensed in Wisconsin will be licensed for UT and MN.
I will also repeat that the recognition of the Wisconsin permit is still up in the air, as is the recognition laws in Minnesota, and the federal government is discussing national recognition of carry permits. With all of this going on the need for an out of state permit is certainly... uncertain at this time. I suggest that all that can wait to get a permits should.
davegran
Regular Member
Apparently, our goals are different than your goals... get over it.
Phoenix David
Regular Member
Yes we are. :banana::banana:
Arizona also accepts a DD-214 as proof of training or another states CCW http://www.azdps.gov/Links/ARS/?l=13/03112.htm
jpm84092
Regular Member
My last UT CFP course:
UT Course Fee = $10 for vets with the purple heart or DAV
UT Course fee = $40 for anyone who never spent a nickle to help a 2a group (So I will use this number.)
Fingerprinting fee = $0
Photo Fee = $8.99 at any Walgreen's
UT Non-Resident application fee = $65.00
So -
$40.00 for newbie to 2A UT Course Fee
$0.00 for fingerprints
$9.00 for photo
$65.00 for UT application
$0.44 for the stamp to mail this all in.
=
$104.44 for UT permit
vs -
$0.00 for the MN permit + $0.00 for training costs
I think I will give up all my permits when they expire and get the $0.00 MN permit. Thanks for the good advice. It will be worth the plane ticket to MSP.
IA Farmboy - you really do not like the UT permit do you? But you do make a lot of sense. I am glad that you guaranteed me and those on this forum a $0.00 MN permit.
Yellow Cat out -
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
I have spent many hours doing research on what non-resident permits that would be the best to get. I put together the following spreadsheet.
I worked backwards and listed only states that DO NOT recognize non-resident permits from the state in the header.
In the columns you will see the state abbreviation of the states that do not recoginze a non-resident permits from the state in the header. The states at the bottom in red are states that do not reconize any permit from any other state. The states at the bottom in yellow are states that only recognize resident permits. I did not even bother to put Illinois on the list at this point.
You will see that are alot more states that a non-resident Minnesota permit is not recognized in compared to Arizona, Utah and Florida. Having said that, even Arizona, Utah and Florida non-resident permits could use a companion non-resident permit to maximize the number of states one can carry in. Arizona/Utah non-resident combination for Wisconsinites with a resident permit for maximum coverage.
I will concede that this may not be for everyone in Wisconsin. There may be people that carry of self-defense that will never leave Wisconsin. There may be others that only travel to Minnesota.
I will post later on the costs.
I worked backwards and listed only states that DO NOT recognize non-resident permits from the state in the header.
In the columns you will see the state abbreviation of the states that do not recoginze a non-resident permits from the state in the header. The states at the bottom in red are states that do not reconize any permit from any other state. The states at the bottom in yellow are states that only recognize resident permits. I did not even bother to put Illinois on the list at this point.
You will see that are alot more states that a non-resident Minnesota permit is not recognized in compared to Arizona, Utah and Florida. Having said that, even Arizona, Utah and Florida non-resident permits could use a companion non-resident permit to maximize the number of states one can carry in. Arizona/Utah non-resident combination for Wisconsinites with a resident permit for maximum coverage.
I will concede that this may not be for everyone in Wisconsin. There may be people that carry of self-defense that will never leave Wisconsin. There may be others that only travel to Minnesota.
I will post later on the costs.
Attachments
Last edited:
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
I believe you are confused on the goals since I only repeated the goals as stated by Brokensprocket on the first post. Here is the original post below, bolds were added by me to emphasize the goals stated.
So the goal is to cover as many states as possible with as little expense as possible. Also, not only is giving money to those states that support our right to self defense it is our duty. At least that is what Brokensprocket has said.
I have a difference in opinion on some points. First is that if the goal is to save money then one should not just buy permits but should instead take the states they intend to travel through, research the permits those states will recognize, and choose carefully which permits to obtain. Another point is that I find buying permits as encouraging more permits, this is actually counter to the intent of the Second Amendment so I do not believe that buying a permit it patriotic. I do believe that buying the permits are a necessary evil.
The other matter I disagree with Brokensprocket on is the actual costs involved in getting a MN permit. In his comparison he did not include the cost of the fingerprinting and photos in the total cost of the UT permit.
I did NOT guarantee anyone a free permit from MN. I only stated that there is no bottom limit on the cost of the permit in law. There is only a maximum fee the sheriff may charge but no minimum. I also did not make the claim that the training for the MN permit is free, just that the training for the MN permit is very likely the same regardless of which state permit you choose to obtain. I have seen that most trainers that offer concealed carry classes offer classes that are recognized as valid training for multiple states, this typically includes UT, FL, MN, AZ, and very likely WI.
One could make the claim that the MN training is "free" since by meeting the requirements for one state they meet the requirements for other states. By that same thinking the UT classes are also "free" if one has already taken the training to get a permit in another state.
I have stated before that I do not like the UT permit so you at least have that right. Utah has changed their law so that residents of shall issue states are now required to show proof of having obtained a resident permit before Utah will allow that person to apply for the UT permit. I believe is this an unequal application of the law, and therefore unconstitutional. I also believe that any information on my resident permit is private and should not be of a concern of Utah. They caved in to demands from other states with this law change and have now inconvenienced many for no legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Not only is the Utah requirement of having to produce a resident permit for non-resident applicants something I disagree with but once one adds in the costs of fingerprinting and photos their permit is no longer much of a deal when compared to the AZ or MN permits.
As you have pointed out the Utah permit will cost over $100. The MN permit is very likely cheaper since one can certainly find a sheriff willing to offer the permit for $50 and a trainer willing to offer the training for less than $50.
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
I have also done plenty of research. An AZ/MN non-resident permit combination covers 32 states. The AZ/UT non-resident permit combination covers 33 states, the extra state is Washington. If Washington is a deal killer then consider a MN/ND non-resident permit combination as it covers Washington in the 32 states that recognize those permits. The ND permit costs $25 for the written test training, and $25 for the testing. There is a live fire requirement for the ND permit if one seeks recognition from WA, I have seen no cost estimate for that training/testing.
Please add in the costs of any photos, fingerprints, extra training, and other possible costs in your estimates. I have given my estimates in this and prior posts. Feel free to dispute my cost estimates as I admit to giving only estimates.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
AZ\MN does not get WA.
MN/ND does not get NV.
AZ/UT does not get.....hmmm....... gets every state that accepts non-resident permits.
ND is not an option. I looked into ND when I was considering going out the to haul water for the oil patch. You have to take a course within the state from a instructor certified by the AG and you must apply in person at a county sheriff and have them do the fingerprints. FYI, the application fee for a non-resident permit is $45. Add that to the course fee and add the fuel to get there and back for the course and application.
MN is very similar in that you have to take a course from a MADFI - certified instructor every 5 years and you have to apply in person at the county sheriff. Add the cost of fuel to travel there and back.
AZ and UT can be mailed in and training can be taken locally. AZ accepts several types of training, including many states hunters safety certificates. Arizona used to be like Nevada, where you had to take training within the state, but that all changed when they went to Constitutional Carry and changed all that. Now, AZ is one of the best choices, and UT is the best companion.
I will not consider the fingerprint cost for AZ and UT, because they supply the cards and the my county sheriff does them for free. There is a lot of places one can get free fingerprinting in Wisconsin. The DOJ sent out a memo to county sheriffs telling them not to charge anymore. Some still do, but most don't.
I will not consider the cost for photos becasue anyone with a digital cammera and a computer can do there own passport style photos.
Last edited: