Category: Gun Rights

Gun Laws in Minnesota

Jay over at MArooned put up a nice post quickly explaining gun laws of states on the eastern shore. Having gun laws of states is always a good thing so I thought I’d copy his idea and do the same for Minnesota. So this is going to be a brief run down of Minnesota firearm laws.

Do note nothing on here should be considered correct nor legal under Minnesota law. This information is correct as far as I know but could change or could be inaccurate. In other words I’m not a lawyer so don’t take legal advice from me. Treat this like a guide.

In General

We don’t have any crazy “assault weapon” bans in this fine state. We also don’t have a list containing “state approved” handguns, all United States legal handguns can be owned here. But there are some notes that need to be added.

In order to purchase a handgun or an “assault weapon” you need to acquire a permit to purchase or have a carry license. A permit to purchase can be obtained from your local sheriff’s office and involves filling out a form, waiting five business days, and returning to the sheriff’s office to pick up your permit (which is a piece of paper, not an official card) [Robert contacted me on Facebook and informed me that in his county a piece of paper and a plastic card was mailed to him instead of just a piece of paper. Apparently this too varies by country]. Once you have this permit you can purchase handguns and “assault weapons.” Permits to purchase expire one year after issuance and which point you must jump through the hoops again to renew it. For all other long guns you can simply go into a gun store and pick one up.

There are no waiting periods for purchasing firearms in this state, minus the time it takes to get a permit to purchase should you need one. Likewise Minnesota has reciprocity with Wisconsin (and possibly other neighboring states, but I’ve only purchased in Wisconsin) allowing you to buy long guns there without having to transfer them to a Minnesota FFL dealer. This is rather convenient honestly.

Carry Permits

Minnesota is a “shall issue” state. You are required to attend a class (there is no written test so don’t sweat it), pass a shooting course (which is so simple I think a blind man could do it), and apply for the permit. You must also take a renewal course once every five years and apply for a new permit. So long as you pass the course and aren’t a prohibited person the county must grant you a permit upon application (and payment of course).

Applying for a permit involves going to the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of your county, showing credentials stating you’ve passed the class, filling out some paperwork, paying a fee up to (but not over) $100.00, and waiting up to (but not over) 30 days for your permit to be mailed to your residence.

If you move you must notify the Chief Law Enforcement Officer [As Joat pointed out you need to notify the issuing officer] issuing officer within, I believe, 30 days. A new permit will be issued and I believe a $10.00 can be charged but I am not sure. Your old permit will remain valid but if you want to get a new one that reflects your new address you will be charged a fee of, I believe, $10.00. [Thanks again Joat]

In Minnesota if you have a valid carry permit you do not need a permit to purchase in order to obtain handguns or “assault weapons.” So if you frequently buy firearms it may be easier to get a carry permit once every five years instead of a permit to purchase every year even if you don’t plan on carrying.

Carry Laws

Once you have your carry permit you can carry a gun in Minnesota openly or concealed. Without that permit you can not legally carry a firearm in Minnesota period (unless of course your a law enforcement officer). Take note that the carry permit does allow you to carry a long arm but you will most likely be questioned by the police anyways. But if you want to walk around lugging a rifle you can with so long as you have a carry permit (I wouldn’t recommend it though).

Private businesses can post that they ban firearms. With that said those signs have very little teeth in this state. The property owner must verbally ask you to leave. If you refuse the request (you’re a fucking moron) they will most likely call the police who will arrive and most likely ask you to leave. If you still don’t get the hint (you’re really fucking stupid) you will receive a $20.00 trespassing fine for your first offense. With that said landlords, such as malls, can not post. Well they can but the signs will have no legal backing [Thanks for mentioning that Nate, I forgot to add it in while I was writing this]. This is a hotly debated topic in the Twin Cities because the Mall of America posts and they are a landlord. Legally those signs have no meaning but it comes down the whether or not you want to deal with the Bloomington police (yes the Mall of America has actual police on site) or simply take your business elsewhere.

State property, with two three exception (which I’ll explain in a second), can not bar you from carrying a firearm. That means you can carry on college campuses here. With that said a college campus can make rules baring students and faculty from carrying. If you are a student of faculty member of such a campus realize that they can expel or fire you but they can not bring any legal action against you.

The one complete exception from being able to carry are courtrooms. You can’t bring a firearm into a court room period. The first exception are courthouses. You can carry in a courthouse if you provide written notice to the sheriff though. [Thanks again Joat]

The second exception, which isn’t a complete exception at all, is the state capital. You can not carry there unless you submit a letter of notification beforehand. Once you submit a letter of notification you’re good to carry. Upon submission you are not given any additional permit or paperwork. Once the letter is submitted you’re good. It is wise however to make a copy of the said letter, take two copies in person to the capital, get one signed, and bring that letter with you whenever you carry at the capitol.

The third exception are daycare centers and K-12 schools (really two exceptions but they fit the same category). Like the capital you can bypass this exception if you are able to obtain written permission from the head of the institution [Thanks again Joat].

NFA Weapons

There isn’t much to say about NFA weapons for Minnesota but there are two major issues to note. First you can not own a suppressor in this state. Sorry it just isn’t happening. Likewise you can only obtain a machine gun if it’s also a C&R (curio and relic) weapon. If you jump through the NFA paperwork and pay the tax stamp you can obtain any other (as far as I know) NFA weapon such as a short barreled rifle or shotgun [I guess shotguns are a no-no].

Things That Make You Go Huh?

Of course as with any highly unregulated industry (according to the Brady Bunch and their ilk) there are also a slew of things that just make you go huh. Joat pointed out to me in #gunblogger_conspiracy this little law on the Minnesota books. It’s illegal to have both a firearm and night vision equipment in your possession at the same time. Why is this on the books? Who fucking knows.

Update 2010-04-20 14:43: Removed short barreled shotguns from the list of allowed NFA weapons in this state. Thanks Greg for pointing that out.

Update 2010-04-21 07:06: Made changes to the information based on Joat’s and Nate’s comment. I threw in a second under carry laws in regards to landlords not being able to post as well as the mechanism available to private property owners to notify they ban firearms. Also added the absurd night vision clause which was also provide to me by Joat.

Update 2010-04-26 07:18: Corrected the information regarding courthouses. Thanks again Joat.

Update 2010-04-26 20:26: Robert contacted me on Facebook and informed me that not all counties require you to pick up a permit to purchase at the Sheriff’s office. Likewise his county not only mails permits but their permits also include a plastic card. I updated the relevant section to reflect this.

What’s Their Purpose

Bitter over at Snowflakes in Hell pointed out another idiotic assortment of dribble that is trying to be passed off as a study. The adamantly anti-gun organization Violence Policy Center has released another one of their Google searches studies. This time they are “proving” that the NRA and its members are dangerous anti-government terrorists. The article advertising this study leads me to ask the question, what exactly is the Violence Policy Center’s purpose?

From what I gather through this article its not so much an anti-gun organization but a pro-government organization. Let’s look at some choice quotes:

The study offers examples of the NRA’s anti-government language, details NRA marketing to Tea Party supporters, and reveals links in nine states between NRA State Election Volunteer Coordinators, the Tea Party movement, and other factions of the “Patriot movement.”

Let me get this straight. You’re supposed to be afraid of the NRA and its supporters because some of those members are part of the tea party movement? Let’s jump into the way back machine here and remember what the original tea parties were about. They were about taxes. People attending these tea party events felt the government was stealing too much of their money in the form of taxes. They were (still are) paying more and want to pay less. Eventually the mass media tried spinning these events as anti-government movements and organized political parties (they were merely events at first). And now the tea party “movement” isn’t just about taxes but wanting small government in general. What’s wrong with that? A desire for small government was the basis on which this country was founded. Let’s rip into some more quotes:

The study finds that, echoing the language of the resurgent Patriot movement, the NRA routinely presents the election of Barack Obama as a virtually apocalyptic threat not only to gun ownership, but to the future of the United States itself.

Most people who vie for small government present the election of Barack Obama as a threat to the future of the United States. He’s the classic “progressive” big government guy which was made very apparent by the fact he did everything he could to ensure the mandatory health insurance bill was passed. Once again it seems that the Violence Policy Center is jockeying itself to be a pro-government organization instead of an anti-gun organization. But there’s more:

In a December 2009 direct-mail letter echoing the language of both the Tea Party movement and the Oath Keepers, the NRA urges the reader to join an “army whose highest allegiance is not to any individual or any political party but only to the cause of freedom.”

Are they seriously trying to spin this as a bad thing? So according to the Violence Policy Center the idea of our military having their allegiance to the concept of freedom is a bad thing? In my book that’s a great thing. I love the idea that of the army ignoring illegal orders such as confiscating guns from the sovereign individuals of the United States. I love the idea of our military refusing to enact marshal law. If that’s what our army is about I’m all for it. I guess the Violence Policy Center doesn’t feel the same way and believe our military should blindly obey the commands of our governing officials even if those orders violence the very Constitution this country was created on. But hey they’re not done yet:

The organization now also markets NRA clothing products emblazoned with the Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, which has become the symbol of the Tea Party movement. The description for the NRA Gadsden tee shirt reads: “What goes around comes around. In the late 18th century, oppressed American patriots voiced their defiance of tyranny by exclaiming, ‘Don’t Tread on Me!’ Perhaps it’s time once again for Freedom-loving citizens to rally ’round the legendary slogan of the famous Gadsden flag.”

The Gadsden flag isn’t the “symbol of the Tea Party movement” but the symbol of those wanting smaller government. In fact according to this implication the Navy should be considered terrorists as they fly the Gadsden flag to this day.

I think the Violence Policy Center needs to take a look at what their real purpose is. It is becoming more and more obvious their position is the ensure government can do as it pleases without any restriction. After all we need to ban guns because members of the NRA hold libertarian ideals! Oh the humanity! There are people who believe that government shouldn’t be interfering with their everyday lives! What will they think of next?

No More Nerf Gun Fights

At least in Illinois. Days of our Trailers let us know that the city of Charleston, Illinois has decided kids having fun should be illegal and hence have banned the discharge of toy guns:

“WEAPONS: A. Discharge of Weapons: It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm, air gun, BB gun, pistol, cannon, toy gun, bow, mechanically drawn bow, or any type of mechanical device projecting pellets, arrows, missiles or projectiles, leaden or otherwise or any other type of missile excepting in a regularly established shooting gallery or unless fired or discharged for ceremonial purposes with a weapon that may cause a report but does not deliver a projectile capable of causing serious injury and with the approval of the Chief of Police; provided, that this subsection shall not be construed to prohibit any officer of the law from discharging a firearm in the performance of his/her duty or for training purposes at an authorized police training facility; nor to any citizen for the discharge of a firearm when lawfully defending his person or property.”

If something could possibly be used in any manner to have fun we need to ban it immediately!

California Assemblywoman Trying to Ban Open Carry

Well the pants shitting hysteria is upon us. Apparently Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (there’s supposed to be some goofy mark above the ‘n’ in Saldana but if it isn’t in the ASCII table I ain’t fucking with it) thinks the open display of unloaded handguns is evil and needs to be stopped. And of course she is citing that incident where 20 people were murdered by open-carry protesters… oh wait that never happened so she’s using this as her justification:

Saldaña cited an open-carry event in Pacific Beach last year as alerting her to the need for a ban on displaying guns, even unloaded, in public. There, with thousands of people at the beach on a Saturday, about 60 members of the movement walked along the boardwalk.

The gall of those people to peaceably demonstrate in a public area! My God somebody could get ideas that we should respect peoples’ rights! This must be stomped down immediately. But there’s more:

“Guns are an intimidating presence,” Saldaña said. “The average citizen can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys.”

Let me run this quick multiple choice question past you that should help the average citizen identify friend from foe.

You see a man walking down the street openly carrying a handgun. Is he:
A) Shooting at you?
B) Not shooting at you?

If you answered ‘A’ he’s a bad guy, if you answered ‘B’ he’s a good guy (as far as you’re concerned of course, if he’s not shooting at you he’s not a concern of yours).

Anyways the bill is Assembly Bill 1934. 1934? That number sounds familiars. Oh yeah it’s the year the National Firearms Act was enacted. A coincidence but a funny one regardless. Those of you in California need to stomp this law and a few others worming their way through your legislation down, HARD. I know your representatives don’t listen to you but make it damned clear if they pass anti-gun bills they won’t be getting another term. And follow that by actively working against them to ensure they don’t get another term.

Oh to close this we have a quote from a police officers:

Said Emeryville Chief James, “We view open carry as an officer safety issue. Officers are taught from Day One at the academy that guns are a threat. … We teach tactically how to respond to that threat.”

Holy shit how do the police deal with the guns other cops are carrying? After all the police are all openly carrying their firearms therefore all of your officers must treat each other as a threat. We know you can’t trust the uniform since people impersonate police officers quite often.

How It’s Done

Apparently some anti-gunner tried to claim most gun owners weren’t law abiding citizens by pointing out the fact that criminals who use guns are technically gun owners. Robb Allen pulls out the facts and does that math thing to show even considering criminals who use guns most gun owners are still law abiding citizens.

Aren’t facts a bitch? Logic truly is the anti-gunner’s worst nightmare.

Reinforcements Have Arrived

A while ago Montana passed this country’s first Firearms Freedom Act. So under Montana law any gun produced in and made exclusively for sale and use in Montana are exempt from federal laws. Well the ATF decided to have none of that and brought legal repercussions against the state. Well Says Uncle let us know that reinforcements have arrived in the form of Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota. All three states, who also have firearms freedom acts of their own, filed friends of the count briefs on the side of Montana.

Although I wouldn’t put money on Montana winning (after all states have no sovereignty anymore) I would absolutely love it if they did. The federal government has been using the interstate commerce clause to strip the states of rights for a long while now. It’s about time the states stood up and said if goods and produced and sold within their borders it’s not interstate commerce and the federal government should keep their noses out of it.