Minnesota Gun Law Reform Signed by Governor Dayton Despite Veto Threat

So much for Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton’s veto threats. He signed a public safety bill Friday that “include(s) granting reciprocity for concealed carry permits from other states, legalizing gun suppressors – sometimes called ‘silencers,’ and allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring handguns in to the state Capitol.” Under the new law,  SF 878, Minnesotans will be able to legally purchase and own suppressors if they do so under the restrictions of federal law. 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 carry in court houses and certain state buildings. People with a permit will not have to notify authorities prior to 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. And because they were attached to an appropriations bill a veto would have caused significant political problems for the Democrat. He would have shut down the state government. So he signed the bill and took credit for the achievement.

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

comments

  1. avatar John Franco says:

    That is awesome, very happy for the citizens of Minnesota!

  2. Good on him, we are making some progress.

  3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Another win. This is terrific!

  4. avatar Ray says:

    First D.C. gets kicked in the teeth by a decision and now THIS. The cracks in the wall are spreading.

    1. avatar John Burtis says:

      This strikes me as fantastic. However, what is to become of the great anti-weapon of any kind advocate unless it is wield by the convicted criminal class, an illegal alien and his spalpeen, a self-styled Venusian, a former member of Air America, an avowed communist, that preening psychopathic god, the great former New Yorker and tax cheat, Senator Al Franken? Won’t this kind of common sense law which will insure that the honest working man is protected against the likes of the foregoing, now grate on this turban wearing protector of America’s enemies?

  5. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Hey Bloomer & Shannon…HOW BOUT THEM APPLES?!!!!!

    Moms for Gun somethin in Everytown…let the Boo hooin begin

  6. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    They spelled governor incorrectly on that sign. A little too happy to proofread I suppose?

    1. avatar DV says:

      Yes a quick google-fu will show that “gocernor” is a common typo.

  7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I like the bit about being able to carry concealed into courts!

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Me, too. I wouldn’t have expected that, well, anywhere. I’d like to see that expanded, though it isn’t something I’d consider a high priority and it isn’t something I’m 100% in favor of, either. I’m about 90% in favor of court carry, let’s say.

      1. avatar Gatha58 says:

        Wondering why you would be against court concealed carry into a courthouse at all ? The people with permits have already been vetted so why the hesitation? Not like the bad guys can carry into the courthouse. Or can they ? Perhaps you are worried that with some legal CC persons coming in that a few bad apples might slip through also ?

        1. avatar Dustin Doyle says:

          There are still potential restrictions for actual court rooms inside the court houses. The idea is that you can protect yourself up until you reach a point where you can legally and safely store your weapon and be under protection from armed bailiffs and the like.

          Even sheriffs have been ambushed leaving court houses because they were disarmed.

  8. avatar Gabe says:

    I just got a little bit poorer…can’t wait to start my paperwork. I’m thinking about building the .300 BLK SBR with suppressor that I’ve been daydreaming about. It’s a great time to be in MN!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I have a 9″, it’s so much fun that affording the ammo is difficult. Go for it!

  9. avatar Tom W. says:

    Remember Minnesota is also the same State that elected Jessie Ventura and Stewert Smalley, I mean Al Franken. They swing more left to right than a kid in a swing set.

    Strange State.

    1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

      Was/is not Jessie, former Navy UDT, strongly in favor of citizen right to bear arms and strongly against a powerful central govt.?

  10. avatar OakRiver says:

    Well done MN!!

  11. avatar Accur81 says:

    Outfreakinstanding!

  12. avatar Dave357 says:

    But no mandatory CLEO signoff on suppressors, right?

    1. avatar Ryan says:

      That was in the bill but dropped as a compromise.
      You can still get around it if the sheriff won’t sign, so it’s not that big of an issue to me.

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        What are the options if the sheriff won’t sign?

        1. avatar Dustin Doyle says:

          Trusts are the best way, LLCs and other corporations can work as well. Figuratively everyone is using trusts now days. Faster and with less hassle.

          http://www.minnesotaguntrustlawyer.com is a good source of info, that and or google searching.

          GOCRA is planning to add shall certify language back in if any sheriffs abuse their discretion.

        2. avatar Ryan says:

          Local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor are acceptable for sign offs.
          The easiest way is to have a trust created. No sign offs are required at all for one.

  13. avatar juliesa says:

    Well done, MN! Sweet to see this in a blue state.

  14. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Just wondering what the reciprocity change will actually mean.

    Will they recognize CO?

    1. avatar Jon says:

      I am wondering about this as well. My hometown in MN is right on the SD border, SD is where I now live and work. Annoying that I have to get a non-resident MN permit because MN doesn’t recognize my SD permit.

    2. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

      I’m definitely curious about the reciprocity list, too. It would be nice be able to carry in MN when I’m visiting family. I didn’t want to go through the hassle and cost of applying for a non-resident permit.

      Color me surprised that Dayton didn’t shut the place down. Maybe the politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are leery of shutting down the government over a holiday weekend. I’m still bitter over them closing the state parks several years back over the 4th of July.

  15. avatar texmln says:

    I shot a quick ‘thank you’ message for signing the bill to the governor on his state website, even though I’m from Texas. If you get a chance, you should too. It only takes 30 seconds to let him know more freedom is appreciated, particularly when it comes to Second Amendment rights. A little positive reinforcement goes a long way.

  16. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    So, as an Iowa weapons carry permit holder, can I stop boycotting Minnesota come August or not?

    1. avatar Dustin Doyle says:

      Hopefully. The DPS (Department of Public Safety) was instructed to be permissive in issuing reciprocity agreements.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Iowa doesn’t make reciprocity agreements with other states, it recognizes any permit from any state and just trusts other states to not be pricks like Minnesota. So Minnesota will have to reciprocate without an agreement.

  17. avatar Rick K says:

    This sounds like common sense to me. I can’t be sure because I’m one of andy cuomo’s disgruntled subjects.

  18. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    This is how a representative republic is supposed to work. No doubt the governor received more than a few calls and letters from people encouraging him to sign the bill after he threatened to veto it, and he had a change of heart.

    Whether he changed his mind out of political expedience or common sense, we’ll never know. But we shouldn’t forget that thoughtful communication with politicians can be a powerful thing.

  19. avatar Don from CT says:

    This is great news.

    But let’s clarify one thing Mr. Weingarten wrote. When discussing law, it’s not “suppressors, sometimes called silencers”. He’s got it a bit backwards.

    It’s SILENCERS period.

    While it has become fashionable to make fun of those who use the word silencer, the simple fact remains that the NFA and all subsequent regulations use the word SILENCER.

    So while we can debate the correct terminology when referring to size, weight, or effectiveness, there is no debating the correct term to use when discussing law.

    Words have meaning.

    Don

  20. avatar Ben In IA says:

    Now if Iowa can get the OmniBus gun bill through the senate I’ll be set!

  21. avatar gsnyder says:

    There will be fewer criminals in Minnesota, in State buildings, etc. Wait and see, I bet no level-headed lawful persons go wacky because they can carry.

  22. avatar MrVigs says:

    Time to add something to the collection with a threaded barrel!!

  23. avatar Ian says:

    There’s certainly a great deal to find out about this subject.
    I like all the points you’ve made.

  24. avatar Kap says:

    Just Maybe we can become free men again since the Start of gun control by FDR in 1933 and at the behest of the rich and bought for politicians of Chicago area, Guess who has pushed the Hardest for Gun Control, the rich and mega rich Democrats and why? so they can corrupt the Laws of the United states for their own enrichment!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email