Non-reciprocating states

[Chunkychuck]

I didn't want to change the direction of the other thread on background checks but I had a question after reading David Gross's post which I have posted below.

"Re: NICS Not Required

New postby David Gross on Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:52 pm
Up until this year, Minnesota was not "Brady Compliant," because Minnesota had not adopted state laws consistent with the Lautenberg and Wellstone amendments to the GCA '68, as amended. I fought becoming Brady Compliant for 2 decades, on principle, because I thought it was stupid to do so, given that I believed that the federal law would be changed/repealed and didn't want Minnesota "stuck" with it by our own hand. I was wrong; and I lost, this year. I couldn't fight it anymore, it became inevitable, and I (as gracefully as I could) conceded the issue.
That law changed officially, effective August 1, 2014, with the adoption of the Latz bill, as drastically amended and passed by the House to incorporate not only the due process(es) required by federal law, but also as supplemented and enhanced by most of the Gun Owners Rights/due process provisions requested by the House DFL, prodded mainly by Tony Cornish, and other Republicans. Tony Cornish was simply "amazing." He made the DFL recognize that failure to deal with the issue was going to cost them seats in this year's elections.
Second Amendment issues, Gun Rights, Civil Rights, is non-partisan, damn it (because there are other issues, purely political, which will require a regime change, if the Republicans can 1) do something useful, 2) not squander it, and 3) not throw it away.). But playing politics with expensive constitutional rights, allowing people to suffer seriously without the surety of winning in court (remember, we are in Minnesota), is reckless. Tony made the right call, as he often does.
Latz and the other antis promoting the original Bloomberg/MOMS-MAIG/Everytown-drafted bill didn't have a clue that we seized the opportunity to advance gun rights through due process requirements in Minnesota compared to the federal law which was already imposed on us through NICS. There is no snapping of procedural pitfalls/traps and required seizures by the government, but the substance stays the same. Gun owners have alternatives and time to make independent arrangements to avoid losing their property rights in forfeitures and liberty rights in technical "crimes." The Bloomberg types wanted to clamp down more and to wage a "war on guns" at the local level. Now, they can't, unless a gun owner is really stupid and doesn't take advantage of the protection s/he has under the law. A word to the wise . . .. We did what we could.
A second unintended consequence to them (they still don't have a clue) was that we also became Brady Compliant, and the P2C and P2P should, very soon, be recognized by BATFE as no longer needing a supplemental NICS check.
Administrative changes at the federal level take time; they never plan ahead or prepare for changes; they only react slowly, even when prodded."


My question is will our becoming Brady compliant eliminate the reasons as to why some states, TX and Fl to name two, will not recognize our permits?

[BBeckwith]

Not really. The reason other states are not recognizing Minnesota PtC generally lies at the feet of the state of MN. The state by law is supposed to review all other states annually and grant states with substantially similar carry laws to carry in MN. Many of those states have a reciprocity agreement in their laws. So far the director of Public Safety (under both Governors Pawlenty and Dayton) have refused to update the list of other states that MN will recognize.

The frustrating part is that the review and granting of carry recognition with other states is law and it is being circumvented pretty blatantly.

[bstrawse]

Not really. The reason other states are not recognizing Minnesota PtC generally lies at the feet of the state of MN. The state by law is supposed to review all other states annually and grant states with substantially similar carry laws to carry in MN. Many of those states have a reciprocity agreement in their laws. So far the director of Public Safety (under both Governors Pawlenty and Dayton) have refused to update the list of other states that MN will recognize.

The frustrating part is that the review and granting of carry recognition with other states is law and it is being circumvented pretty blatantly.

For what it's worth, we asked about this question of all candidates for Governor and State Representative. You can see their individual responses over at GOCRA's site.
b

[Chunkychuck]

Thanks