• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Minnesota Gun Law Reform Signed by Governor Dayton

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
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/minnesota-gun-law-reform-signed-by.html
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

robdoar

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Minneapolis
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.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Things that make you go hmmmm

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!
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
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:

BU1

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
1
Location
MN
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.:)
 

robdoar

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Minneapolis
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:

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
If they do not publish a list, All state permits are accepted, correct?

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?
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
I think you mean that Wisconsin does not issue permits to non-residents

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.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
This is the language in the Engrossed version of the bill

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/?year=2015&type=0&doctype=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:

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Maybe the commissioner will do nothing...

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.
 
Top