Minnesota resident - carry in North Dakota

[xd ED]

jshuberg,
your explanation is articulate and intriguing,

and I'll add to the list of all the things I am not to include English language legal expert.

That said, I would agree if it said "which state grants", unequivocally referring to the permit, as opposed to the word "whose", which I interpret to be personal possessive, if that's the correct term, referring to the individual.

[Thunder71]

I said the same thing pages ago lol.

I believe what was referenced above was the requirement to get a permit, below is the reciprocity law which does not have the home state requirement. You can't get a ND permit with an out of state permit, only if your home state recognizes ND - that makes sense. According to the below law on the actual reciprocity, you can carry in ND with a FL permit (for example).

A person who has a valid license issued by another state to carry a concealed firearm or
dangerous weapon in that state and whose state grants to residents of this state the right to
carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon without requiring a separate license to carry a
concealed firearm or dangerous weapon issued by that state may carry, subject to the
provisions of this state's law, a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon in this state, and the
other state's license is valid in this state.

[xd ED]

I said the same thing pages ago lol.

I believe what was referenced above was the requirement to get a permit, below is the reciprocity law which does not have the home state requirement. You can't get a ND permit with an out of state permit, only if your home state recognizes ND - that makes sense. According to the below law on the actual reciprocity, you can carry in ND with a FL permit (for example).

A person who has a valid license issued by another state to carry a concealed firearm or
dangerous weapon in that state and whose state grants to residents of this state the right to
carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon without requiring a separate license to carry a
concealed firearm or dangerous weapon issued by that state may carry, subject to the
provisions of this state's law, a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon in this state, and the
other state's license is valid in this state.

And in the case of a MN resident: "whose state" refers to the state of MN regardless of what, if any gun permits one may or may not possess.

[Hmac]

So...relative to my original question...nobody knows?

[farmerj]

So...relative to my original question...nobody knows?

The top attorney in north Dakota says no reciprocity with mn. The state law is ambiguous at best on residency requirementa with some claiming there are none. There are no written opinions from county attorney's or sheriff's. There are verbal communication, but no third party verifications.

How lucky do you feel given the political relationship of mn and nd while possessing a mn drives license and carrying in and on a nonresident license from a distant state?


Who's willing to be that test case? I believe the consensus in the past has been, "test cases are for other people.."

[xd ED]

So...relative to my original question...nobody knows?

Yeah, I just re-read the entire thread. It seems all relevant points have been put forth, discussed to agreement and disagreement.
Given there is no known case law, I think you're correct.

[jshuberg]

The top attorney in north Dakota says no reciprocity with mn

Which is absolutely correct, they have no reciprocity with the MN permit. However, they do have reciprocity with permits issued by Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, etc. and if you have a non-resident permit issued by one of those states, you should be GTG in NoDak.

And in the case of a MN resident: "whose state" refers to the state of MN regardless of what, if any gun permits one may or may not possess.

The statute is a very poorly written run-on sentence, and despite being a bit linguistically clumsy, the "whose state" refers to the license being discussed, not the person. While it might be common language to say "my state", the fact is that a person doesn't posses a state. There is also no default person-state relationship without a defining context. Do you mean a persons legal state of residence? Do you mean their birth state? Do you mean the state they are currently occupying? Do you mean the state of the persons favorite football team? From a legal standpoint, the relationship that the "whose" refers to cannot be ambiguous or undefined. The statute provides no person-state context, so it simply cannot be what the "whose" is referring to.

Another way of looking at it - if the legislature had meant to mean a persons legal state of residence, they would have stated it explicitly the same way they did for the granting non-resident permits. The only [noun]-state relationship mentioned or defined by the statute to which the "whose" phrasing could possibly be referring to is the license that is issued by another state, which is also the main subject of the statute. There is no other [noun]-state relationship defined in the statute to which the "whose state" could be referring.

Any way you parse it, despite it being worded poorly, there is no inferred residency requirement for reciprocity with NoDak.

IANAL

[Grayskies]

Ok, so now I am even more confused... But I get until we have a test case (not going to be me!) there is no clear answer?

Given that, perhaps getting an out of state permit that N Dak may recognise (will take suggestions on which one) might be a good idea? (should look at S Dak too...)

I think I will do some research on transporting (in a pickup) with out a carry permit, not perfect but better than leaving the firearm at home.

[cobb]

Ok, so now I am even more confused... But I get until we have a test case (not going to be me!) there is no clear answer?

I tell the people that take my class the same thing, it is not clear and I caution them. I have called the ND Attorney General and as mentioned earlier, she will refer you to their web site and not give a clarification or opinion. When asking her about carry in ND under a FL or UT she did say I would have to refer to those states for a clarification.

Given that, perhaps getting an out of state permit that N Dak may recognise (will take suggestions on which one) might be a good idea? (should look at S Dak too...)

Just to clarify, South Dakota does not issue non resident permits.

[xd ED]

The top attorney in north Dakota says no reciprocity with mn

Which is absolutely correct, they have no reciprocity with the MN permit. However, they do have reciprocity with permits issued by Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, etc. and if you have a non-resident permit issued by one of those states, you should be GTG in NoDak.

And in the case of a MN resident: "whose state" refers to the state of MN regardless of what, if any gun permits one may or may not possess.

The statute is a very poorly written run-on sentence, and despite being a bit linguistically clumsy, the "whose state" refers to the license being discussed, not the person. While it might be common language to say "my state", the fact is that a person doesn't posses a state. There is also no default person-state relationship without a defining context. Do you mean a persons legal state of residence? Do you mean their birth state? Do you mean the state they are currently occupying? Do you mean the state of the persons favorite football team? From a legal standpoint, the relationship that the "whose" refers to cannot be ambiguous or undefined. The statute provides no person-state context, so it simply cannot be what the "whose" is referring to.

Another way of looking at it - if the legislature had meant to mean a persons legal state of residence, they would have stated it explicitly the same way they did for the granting non-resident permits. The only [noun]-state relationship mentioned or defined by the statute to which the "whose" phrasing could possibly be referring to is the license that is issued by another state, which is also the main subject of the statute. There is no other [noun]-state relationship defined in the statute to which the "whose state" could be referring.

Any way you parse it, despite it being worded poorly, there is no inferred residency requirement for reciprocity with NoDak.

IANAL

I stated this post with the intention of furthering my argument with you, however, even as I view the statute's text broken down as follows, it suggests both that the term "whose state" refers to the person, and it also seems reasonable to believe that both applications of the term: "that state" would refer to the same state.
Clearly the first use of "that state" would refer to (a MN resident's) FLA/ AZ, etc (permit.), thus making it reasonable-by my standards- to believe the second use of the term refers to the same.
I am less certain of my position now than before.

As written:

62.1-04-03.1. Reciprocity.
A person who has a valid license issued by another state to carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon in that state and whose state grants to residents of this state the right to carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon without requiring a separate license to carry a
(Page No. 3)
concealed firearm or dangerous weapon issued by that state may carry, subject to the provisions of this state's law, a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon in this state, and the other state's license is valid in this state.

62.1-04-03.1. Reciprocity.


A person

who has a valid license issued by another state to carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon in that state

and

whose state grants to residents of this state the right to carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon without requiring a separate license to carry a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon issued by that state

may carry, subject to the provisions of this state's law, a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon in this state, and the other state's license is valid in this state.

[xd ED]

Ok, so now I am even more confused... But I get until we have a test case (not going to be me!) there is no clear answer?

Given that, perhaps getting an out of state permit that N Dak may recognise (will take suggestions on which one) might be a good idea? (should look at S Dak too...)

I think I will do some research on transporting (in a pickup) with out a carry permit, not perfect but better than leaving the firearm at home.

I don't think it's an issue as to which out of state permits would be best, it's an issue regarding our state of residency.

[farmerj]

And transport is just as mussed up.

You can transport uncased and with a loaded magazine in the firearm, just not a loaded chamber.


Then you can transport with a loaded chamber too. IF you are hunting coyote.

[cobb]

You can transport uncased and with a loaded magazine in the firearm, just not a loaded chamber.

farmer, are you sure?
I thought that was only when big game season was open that you could not have a round in the chamber. Don't know why it is that way, but I thought it was and I may be wrong.
I do not hunt SD except for pheasants and I keep my shotgun unloaded.

[farmerj]

You can transport uncased and with a loaded magazine in the firearm, just not a loaded chamber.

farmer, are you sure?
I thought that was only when big game season was open that you could not have a round in the chamber. Don't know why it is that way, but I thought it was and I may be wrong.
I do not hunt SD except for pheasants and I keep my shotgun unloaded.

This is what the ND Highway patrol will tell you.
http://www.nd.gov/ndhp/faq/how-do-i-tra ... rth-dakota

While the ND Game and Fish say:

Other Firearms/Archery Equipment Restrictions
•It is illegal to go afield with a firearm or bow and arrow while intoxicated.
•Firearms must be unloaded and encased while within the boundaries of any national park.

I gotta do some searching on this....

Did ND finally wise up? I know it used to be just had to have the pipe clear. Coyote hunting you could be locked and loaded.


The actual ND Century code....

62.1-02-10. Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle - Penalty - Exceptions.
An individual may not keep or carry a loaded firearm in or on any motor vehicle in this state.
An individual violating this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. This prohibition does not
apply to:
1. A member of the armed forces of the United States or national guard, organized
reserves, state defense forces, or state guard organizations while possessing the
firearm issued to the member by the organization and while on official duty.
2. A law enforcement officer, except while the officer is engaged in hunting or trapping
activities with a rifle or shotgun.
3. An individual possessing a valid North Dakota concealed weapons license or a valid
license issued by another state authorizing the individual to carry a firearm or
dangerous weapon concealed if that state permits a holder of a valid North Dakota
concealed weapons license to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon concealed in that
state without obtaining a similar license from that state, except while that individual is
in the field engaged in hunting or trapping activities.
4. An individual in the field engaged in lawful hunting or trapping of nongame species or
fur-bearing animals.
5. A security guard or private investigator properly licensed to carry firearms.
6. An individual possessing a valid special permit issued pursuant to section 20.1-02-05.

[farmerj]

the state has really gotten convoluted in their laws. It used to be plainly stated. It's not so anymore and I don't have time tonight to decipher it all. One section makes it seem like you can, then it talks about concealed and the definition of concealed.

It's as if a lawyer wrote the stupid law so only other lawyers might be able to figure out what it doesn't say.