◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

In May of 2015, Minnesota enacted an omnibus firearm reform law that went into effect August 1. One of the reforms was a change in the wording for Minnesota to recognize permits from other states. The previous language required that other states’ laws be “substantially similar” to Minnesota’s permit law. The Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety is required to publish a list, and if the state that a person has a permit for is not on the list, then the permit is considered valid . . .

Here is the old law, that’s no longer in effect . . .

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 substantially 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.

The new law has a new criteria:

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 substantially 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.

No new list had been posted by late Sunday evening, August 2. A contributor at opencarry.org suggests that the new Minnesota list will recognize an additional eight states, and remove recognition from two; Texas and Utah. That is mere rumor at present.

I do not wish to be a test case, but it appears that at least for this weekend, all states’ permits were valid in Minnesota. DPS has had ample time to create a new list. The Minnesota DPS has not issued a list under the new law.

The new law is clear. If a state is not on the list, its permit is valid in Minnesota.I think the Minnesota authorities would have a tough time prosecuting someone from say, North Dakota who had a permit from North Dakota and was carrying in Minnesota before the Minnesota DPS publishes a new list. Clearly, the old list is no longer valid.

Maybe a new list will be posted on today . . .

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

 

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

35 COMMENTS

      • I think I’ll be riding my unicorn with a mini-uzi, Glock 29 with a fun switch and a select fire suppressed AR15 before that happens.

        Anyways if they stop recognizing Utah’s permit that is going to really suck since Utah was one of the few easy to get non-resident permits if you wanted to carry in MN without an MN permit if your states permit was not valid in MN.

        • Yep, lots of Utah permit carriers over in eastern ND.

          I went over to OpenCarry and read the thread that I believe Mr. Weingarten referenced in his write-up, above, but I still can’t see how going from “substantially similar” to “similar” would cause ANY state to drop off the reciprocity list. Isn’t “similar” considered a sub-group of “substantially similar” in MN’s universe?

        • Substantially similar is a subset of similar.
          Changing the criterion to similar should disqualify fewer states.
          A pear is similar to an apple in that they are both fruit. A Fuji apple is substantially similar to a Delicious apple. But IANAL.

        • Thank you for the correction; I did get the set/subset mixed up, but it looks like I was on the right track.

          As you seem to have a better grasp of the overall situation, aside from other changes in the law (or laws of the other states), can you see any way that this stated change alone (from “substantially similar” to “similar”) could ADD any states to the excluded list?

      • From a strategic perspective, would it make sense to push for a national “constitutional carry” Light? Encompassing, only say, single action revolvers (and perhaps lever and bolt guns long guns and break open shotguns)?

        There’s simply no way, at least until “we” get as clear sighted and fed up as the Somalis, we’ll have anything resembling genuine constitutional (as in, of militarily decisive weapons) carry. So, in order to have any semblance of a chance, we’ll have to settle at some point, lest we just waste our time squabbling over details like magazine capacity, trigger pull, traditional KKK concerns like how “black” a gun is etc., etc.

        The old school single action revolver (with a transfer bar), doesn’t really seem to frighten even San Franciscans all that much. Even hipsters seem more genuinely fascinated by the mechanics of it all (it’s kind of like an old pre autoplastic film SLR, or even an old, Italian espresso machine….) than obsessed with how un-PC and baad it is. And, it’s (to the gunologically unsophisticated, at least), a reasonable stand in for the kind of guns that the founders were “were thinking of” back when the 2nd still meant something, getting around that objection.

        From a practical pow, in half competent hands, it’s not THAT disadvantaged in most typical self defense scenarios versus a G17. Compared to being disarmed, it’s 9/10ths of the way to a G17, and I reckon it would be more than 10/9ths easier to get the Feds to make it a national minimum standard, compared to any standard that does not proscribe those eeevil black guys (Sorry, I meant guns….)

        In addition, it just may prompt Ruger to release a 2.5-3 inch barreled, polymer single six in .38. Or even better, in 9mm Ruger (rimmed)…..

        • True. But I think a Concealed Carry registry would just put us under higher magnification, if you know what I mean (who to come for first).

    • Not only “no”, but hell no to a national carry permit. There is no way that I want the feds involved in any way whatsoever in such permitting requirements, when they suck so clearly at reading the unambiguous wording of the second amendment.

      Federal reciprocity of state-issued resident permits, however, is long overdue.

  2. Other states’ permits are recognized in Minnesota only if they’re on the list. The authors of the bill intended that most states be recognized. The change in law is an attempt to push the AG into interpreting the law the way it was intended to be. If they refuse to, this time, there’s going to be a lawsuit filed. (The gun rights group have already collected plenty of evidence demonstrating willful lack of good faith in the process by which the AG’s office compiles the list.)

    So we have good reason to beleive that MN’s reciprocity situation is going to imorove. But the recent change in the statute has no immediate effect.

  4. Hopefully they add Georgia. Doesn’t effect me but I want my friend from MN to be able to carry when he comes to visit.

    • How would Minnesota’s laws affect what’s valid in Georgia?

      Far as I can tell, this only applies to carrying in MN.

      • My guess would be that Georgia will allow carry with permits from any state that recognizes Georgia permits.

  5. NOT for federal government overstepping. But all states imo should navigate around the federal constitution inforced by federal mandates. To constitutional carry open or concealed. Or per a background verification to carry say every 10years. Or purchase of new weapons through a simple background check. Waiting lists aren’t for rifles so why so for pistols?

    • “Or per a background verification to carry say every 10years. Or purchase of new weapons through a simple background check.”

      You were doing good right up to this point. If you agree that the government has the authority to establish a background check system, then the government has the authority to establish what disqualifies a person from exercising their RKBA. Pretty sure that wording does not exist in the Second Amendment:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Nope, not in there.

  6. I am actually waiting on my MN permit to come in the mail right now. Are there any opinions out there about other states perhaps recognizing the MN permit? I was thinking about applying for a nonresident FL permit as well, but would rather spare the expense.

  7. Arizona will accept a copy of any other State’s permit as “proof of training”, proof of active military service, or “other than dishonorable” on a DD-214. (plus a bunch of other stuff)

    This makes it pretty easy for a out of state individual to get. (non-resident is not technically correct as AZ does not issue resident or non-resident permits, they are all the same)

  8. -I wouldn’t try to test it. The courts would probably rule that the old list governs until they issue a new list.

  9. It’s a little mind-boggling why they don’t already honor Illinois. With our 16 hour training requirement, 21 states recognize the Illinois CCL. Minnesota honors a lot of other permits with easier training requirements.

    • Probably got something to do with the term ‘reciprocity’. Many states won’t honor a CCL from a state which does not honor theirs. I’m guessing Illinois doesn’t honor MN’s CCL.

  10. I think it is about the money. It is fairly easy to get a non resident Minnesota permit. The training requirements aren’t that onerous.

    • Excepting that one needs to appear in person at a Sheriff’s office to apply for the Minnesota non-res.
      Since almost every time I’ve been in Minnesota it’s a weekend and the offices are closed, I never got one.
      Hoping Illinois makes it.

      • It’s just a 30 minute ride to Winona for me!

        But seriously this is a money issue. Minnesota also does not recognize any other states hunter ed course either so to you want to hunt in Minnesota you have attend classes for that too. There were three reasons for moving to Wisconsin instead of Minnesota. Carry permits, hunting licenses and keeping the Mississippi River between us and our daughter -in-law. A variant on “good fences make good neighbors.”

  11. Minnesota is bluer than Wisconsin so the libbies there gotta prove they’re capable of keeping their taxes, laws and such are more “progressive” in the race to the bottom.

  12. There ought to be a waiting period on the list, I’d accept a week, but 30 days would be better.
    It needs to be published long before it takes effect, not as it takes effect.

    Just imagine, you’re walking along, perfectly legal, and then the list is published and your issuing state is on it. Suddenly, what was legal ten seconds ago is now illegal.

    Or, the list is out, you’re not on it, then another list comes out.
    Maybe you carefully planned a trip, printed out all the myriad of laws affecting your carry on the trip, and then one of the states changed their reciprocity while you were en route.

  13. Minnesota has just updated theirs CCW reciprocity page. ND Class 1 permit holders are now legal to carry in MN, for those who may be reading this.

    NOTE OF GREATER IMPORTANCE: UTAH PERMITS HAVE BEE DROPPED FROM RECIPROCITY IN MINNESOTA! Effective immediately, if you carry using a UT non-resident permit in MN, you are now in violation of the law! Link to MN reciprocity page:

    https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/permit-to-carry-reciprocity.aspx

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here