Minnesota stopped recognizing Utah permit, what does that mean for Iowans?

[IA_farmboy]

Minnesota has published its new list of recognized permits to carry weapons since its latest revision to the law, and Utah is not on it. It seems it has been standard procedure for any Iowan that wants to carry tools of self defense to go to one of those Florida/Utah/Iowa recognized training classes, apply for both an Iowa and Utah license, so that one might carry legally in 35 states. The biggest reasons for getting the Utah permit was cost and that it was recognized in our neighboring state of Minnesota. Now that Minnesota no longer recognizes the Utah permit will people bother to renew?

I've looked at what permits Minnesota does recognize and that list is short. If you are an Iowan that visits Minnesota frequently then I'd like to know how you intend to make up for the loss of recognition of the Utah permit.

On a bit off topic note I see that the Illinois permit is recognized in Minnesota, how many Iowans have considered getting the Illinois permit for carry in Illinois and Minnesota? That permit is rather expensive but as of today it is the only permit recognized in Illinois.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

More information for you.

http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/08/mn-minnesota-posts-new-ccw-reciprocity.html

 

[Grapeshot]

More information for you.

http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/08/mn-minnesota-posts-new-ccw-reciprocity.html

Some very good logic and insight there.

 

[press1280]

Some very good logic and insight there.

Yes, proves that when you leave something to the discretion of local officials, they will pull stuff like this. If they get a decent Governor in next time they ought to pass a universal recognition or at least a "you recognize us, we recognize you" type law.

 

[Dollar Bill]

I also had the Utah permit to cover MN. Wish WI could add another classification like ND has to satisfy MN.
I hope something changes. As of last night, I will go out of my way to stay on my side of the border. Which means I will be spending more money in WI.

 

[bnhcomputing]

Anybody who thinks this has to do with the Governor is mistaken. This change was driven by the training/instructor lobby. Too many people were getting their local state permits, and then getting the Utah, so the MN instructors where losing out on $$$$.

This is all about the MONEY, but that’s what you get when the MN bill was written by the instructor lobby.

 

[Grapeshot]

Anybody who thinks this has to do with the Governor is mistaken. This change was driven by the training/instructor lobby. Too many people were getting their local state permits, and then getting the Utah, so the MN instructors where losing out on $$$$.

This is all about the MONEY, but that’s what you get when the MN bill was written by the instructor lobby.

If people were getting their Minnesota permits first, how where the MN instructors losing money?
Aaah, I see this was directed at people from Iowa. My mistake.

Do you have a cite for the claim that the bill/law was written by the "instructor lobby?"

 

[bnhcomputing]

If people were getting their Minnesota permits first, how where the MN instructors losing money?
Aaah, I see this was directed at people from Iowa. My mistake.

Do you have a cite for the claim that the bill/law was written by the "instructor lobby?"

Not at this time, as google doesn't seem to go back to the beginning of the MN carry issue. My memory tells me that in the beginning you had to be certified by some organization (BCI comes to mind) and even NRA certified instructors couldn't be instructors in MN. Of course this met with great resistance, and then the bill was modified to accept NRA instructors as well.

My point was more to the fact that MN permit instructors are "for profit." The bill could have easily said Hunter Safety Education is sufficient, like FL did at the time. So why all the extra training requirements, and instructor certifications??? The answer, follow the money. I'll do a little more research tonight, and hopefully be able to find more information.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not at this time, as google doesn't seem to go back to the beginning of the MN carry issue. My memory tells me that in the beginning you had to be certified by some organization (BCI comes to mind) and even NRA certified instructors couldn't be instructors in MN. Of course this met with great resistance, and then the bill was modified to accept NRA instructors as well.

My point was more to the fact that MN permit instructors are "for profit." The bill could have easily said Hunter Safety Education is sufficient, like FL did at the time. So why all the extra training requirements, and instructor certifications??? The answer, follow the money. I'll do a little more research tonight, and hopefully be able to find more information.

Don't dig too deep - I do understand your point. Just hadn't heard that reference specific to the MN statute.

IMHO - even if you had constitutional carry, people will still want training + permits for out of state travel. Think good instructors will stay busy.

 

[ccwinstructor]

You Think that "Hunter Safety" could have been added "easily". Why?

Not at this time, as google doesn't seem to go back to the beginning of the MN carry issue. My memory tells me that in the beginning you had to be certified by some organization (BCI comes to mind) and even NRA certified instructors couldn't be instructors in MN. Of course this met with great resistance, and then the bill was modified to accept NRA instructors as well.

My point was more to the fact that MN permit instructors are "for profit." The bill could have easily said Hunter Safety Education is sufficient, like FL did at the time. So why all the extra training requirements, and instructor certifications??? The answer, follow the money. I'll do a little more research tonight, and hopefully be able to find more information.

Why do you think the Hunter Safety course could have been added easily? The Minnesota Second Amendment groups had to fight tooth and nail to get this. I did not hear of *any* opposition from organized instructors, but there might have been some.

The Commissioner of Public Safety could just as easily included 20 more states under the "similar" terminology, but she didn't.

Are you saying that for profit Instructors have more clout with her than the Governor, who threatened to veto the bill altogether?

The bill was signed only because it was attached to the budget.

I think your estimate of the clout of a few instructors is way overblown.

I see them mostly being used as an excuse in a few states to try to derail reform bills. They become useful idiots for the local media to spin efforts to stop reform for ideological reasons.

Ideological disarmists are far more organized and have far more money that the few for profit instructors out there. They fight *any* reform of gun laws tooth and nail, because they do not want ordinary people to have guns.

If they can't stop people from owning guns, *at this time*, then they want to stop people from having loaded guns.

If they can't stop people from having loaded guns, at this time, they want to stop people from carrying guns.

If they can't stop people from carrying guns, at this time, they want to restrict the number as much as possible.

If they cannot restrict the numbers, at this time, they want to stop people from carrying guns as many places as possible.

It is that simple. Follow the ideology. For a lot of people, it is a stronger motivator than money, and for a lot of politicos, the money lies in pushing the anti-gun, leftist, disarmist ideology.

Where does the money come from?

George Soros, The Anneberg Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Michael Bloomberg, The Democrat party.

Politicians also get lots of positive coverage for disarmist political moves from local, state, and national media. The value of that spin is very large, if you measured it in dollars.

 

[OC for ME]

Why do you think the Hunter Safety course could have been added easily? The Minnesota Second Amendment groups had to fight tooth and nail to get this. I did not hear of *any* opposition from organized instructors, but there might have been some. ...

Here in MO I have watched (TV), and read, CC instructors vigorously support CC prior restraint laws. Instead of simply stating that all prior restraint laws are unconstitutional...come on down and take my training.

Many are anti-OC and support having a CC endorsement (prior restraint, money in their pocket) to OC in MO. The CC Industrial Complex is strong in MO and the media knows who they are and goes to them as required...the media's useful idiots, if you will.

Iowans need to refrain from interacting with Minnesota.

 

[utbagpiper]

IMHO - even if you had constitutional carry, people will still want training + permits for out of state travel. Think good instructors will stay busy.

Even if we had nationwide constitutional carry, I think people will still want firearms training ranging from first time shooters all the way up to advanced self-defense, not to mention training for hunting. Look at the number of martial arts trainers who seem to earn a fine living teaching everyone from grade school kids all the way to the elderly.

We've now got some half dozen States with Constitutional Carry. Does anyone have any information on firearms instructor income in these States?

A few years back Utah moved to require non-residents in States that recognize our permit to get a home State permit before getting a non-resident Utah permit. This was in direct response to Texas threatening to drop recognition over the very issue of Texas residents getting a Utah permit in lieu of a Texas permit thus costing instructor income and Texas permit fee income. This was on the heals of another State dropping Utah recognition for what we believe was the same reason, despite the official reason being a lack of live fire requirement for the Utah permit.

I guess I've been very fortunate in Utah as our instructors have never attacked RKBA in any way. They have consistently put RKBA above their own short term financial interests. I suppose instructors in other areas have been less principled.

Obviously, the fix is for the citizens/voters in each State to push for and gain improvements in their States' laws. Universal recognition of all other permits without worrying about "substantially similar" (or least going recognizing all permits that require a criminal background check; are their any permits that don't?) is a great stepping stone toward not requiring permits at all.

Charles

 

[IA_farmboy]

I guess I've been very fortunate in Utah as our instructors have never attacked RKBA in any way. They have consistently put RKBA above their own short term financial interests. I suppose instructors in other areas have been less principled.

I have a one word response to this, it starts with a "B", ends with a "T", and roughly translates to "I don't believe you." People are people and I'd expect Utah residents to be no different.

We're getting off topic here. The question is how Iowans are responding to the loss of recognition of permits by Minnesota, especially that of Utah as it seems that was very popular. So far all I've seen is reducing visits to the state, which is certainly an acceptable answer.

Has anyone obtained a permit from Minnesota? If so, please describe the process and provide any tips that may be helpful for others.

I was considering getting a permit from Texas but that has been dropped from the list also.

 

[IA_farmboy]

A month passes and no replies so I thought I'd give this thread a bump.

I did a little more looking into this and found that the list of permits an Iowan can get for lawful carry of self defense tools in Minnesota is short. I found only three states that offer shall issue permits to non-residents that are recognized in Minnesota, those are Nevada, Illinois, and (of course) Minnesota.

Nevada requires that the training for their permit must take place in the state of Nevada, that can be problematic.

The permit application process for both Minnesota and Illinois appear to be lengthy and expensive.

My best guess is that Minnesota would rather Iowans not visit.

 

[amaixner]

A month passes and no replies so I thought I'd give this thread a bump.
I did a little more looking into this and found that the list of permits an Iowan can get for lawful carry of self defense tools in Minnesota is short. I found only three states that offer shall issue permits to non-residents that are recognized in Minnesota, those are Nevada, Illinois, and (of course) Minnesota.
Nevada requires that the training for their permit must take place in the state of Nevada, that can be problematic.
The permit application process for both Minnesota and Illinois appear to be lengthy and expensive.

My best guess is that Minnesota would rather Iowans not visit.

Actually Minnesota would prefer that you spend a bunch of time and money doing *their* class and buying *their* permit so you have permission to defend yourself in their state, and then come and spend more money, please.

The theme here is money.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Actually Minnesota would prefer that you spend a bunch of time and money doing *their* class and buying *their* permit so you have permission to defend yourself in their state, and then come and spend more money, please.

The theme here is money.

No the powers to be right now would rather you not carry in MN

 

[utbagpiper]

I have a one word response to this, it starts with a "B", ends with a "T", and roughly translates to "I don't believe you." People are people and I'd expect Utah residents to be no different.

We're getting off topic here.

You dragged us off topic with an insult to my integrity.

I'll not stoop to your level. I'll simply ask you for any citation you can provide to back up your claim that Utah Gun/Permit/Hunter Safety Instructors have, as a group or even any significant number of individuals ever (as in the last 20 years) done anything to attack true RKBA or impede Utahns' efforts to move toward constitutional carry.

I've been actively involved in the Utah RKBA community for nearly 20 years. In that time I've NEVER seen our resident Instructors attacking RKBA or even putting up roadblocks to any efforts to move closer to a full, constitutional respect for RKBA.

I've seen the largest Instructors' association take a "no position" on a bill or two that moved us closer to constitutional carry. But I've never seen them opposing a good RKBA bill, even if the short term effects might have the potential to reduce Instructor income.

If you have personal observations to the contrary in Utah, I'll accept them at face value.

I'll accept a citation from some credible source.

Barring either of the following, I'll expect a mature man to offer an apology for painting with an unfairly broad brush.

And for the record, I'm not an instructor. So I have no personal financial stake here. But I do favor accurate data. --edited by moderator--

Funny thing is, just as you seem to have a hard time accepting that Utah instructors care more about RKBA than they do short term financial gains, when I first starting hearing about what sometimes happened elsewhere, I had a hard time believing instructors in other States would put some personal short term financial interest above RKBA. Perhaps, we each accept that which we have seen in our own localities. IOW, something about "projection" comes to mind.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

My best guess is that the current powers that be in Minnesota would rather gun owners not visit.

FIFY.

I think Firearms_Instructor has probably assessed the situation rather well. It looks like the powers-that-be simply want to limit LACs' possession of self-defense firearms.

I wish the good citizens of Minnesota the very best of luck in correcting this situation.

Charles