Ok, who squealed?

[Heffay]

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/114652084.html

I bring this to your attention because I feel the state of Minnesota is losing out on a bunch of revenue because their permit policies cost the end user too much

... I see what you did there!

[jaydubs]

Utah's is recognized by 33 states?!

That would sure be convenient for road trips! Oh wait, most of my trips pass through Wisconsin and Illinois.

[shadeslanding]

Here's what I posted on that blog:

@amieson and @saisbest, You're both wrong. A UT is recognized in MN period.

There is NO requirement in 624.714 that a MN resident MUST have a MN permit to carry in MN. We've been training people in the MCPPA and Utah carry since 2003.

Legislation is pending in UT that will require a non-Utah resident to have a permit from their home state and for that state to recognize the Utah permit. If that legislation passes, then MN residents will be required to have a UT permit.

I would also submit that the UT background check is a notch above that in MN as fingerprints must be submitted. Utah forwards those prints to the FBI for a clearance. Also a DUI or DWI that is not older than 4 years will disqualify you. Not so for the background check here in MN.

As for the author of this piece, the object for Minnesota Sheriffs is to recoup their admin costs of the program. Not to make a profit. Also note that UT does this with a $65.25 first time fee.

Prints are not required on renewal (they don't change) only a new photo and currently a $10 fee. That may rise to $15 due to legislation pending in the UT legislature. As to saibest who wants names and full titles, go get advice from an attorney. Oh wait - that might cost you money. Marc Berris is one attorney who knows the MN carry law very well. Give him a call if you still think you know more than those of us who teach both classes.

You should not get your legal advice online anyhow - that's a fool's course.

[DeanC]

Legislation is pending in UT that will require a non-Utah resident to have a permit from their home state and for that state to recognize the Utah permit. If that legislation passes, then MN residents will be required to have a UT permit.

That don't make no sense.

[shadeslanding]

Legislation is pending in UT that will require a non-Utah resident to have a permit from their home state and for that state to recognize the Utah permit. If that legislation passes, then MN residents will be required to have a UT permit.

That don't make no sense.

MN residents will be required to have a MN permit. You're right. The last line made no sense. Damn - now I have to go correct the other online thing.

[shadeslanding]

Legislation is pending in UT that will require a non-Utah resident to have a permit from their home state and for that state to recognize the Utah permit. If that legislation passes, then MN residents will be required to have a UT permit.

That don't make no sense.

Your avatar gives me motion sickness...

[gyrfalcon]

Your avatar gives me motion sickness...

+1

[mnglocker]

Let sleeping dogs lie.

[DeanC]

Your avatar gives me motion sickness...

That avatar is me trying to figure out what your post meant.

[JoeH]

Maybe MN should offer a well accepted non-res permit and take some of Utah's business from them. Then MN residents AND others from across the country will pay to have a MN permit.

[mnglocker]

Maybe MN should offer a well accepted non-res permit and take some of Utah's business from them. Then MN residents AND others from across the country will pay to have a MN permit.

Oh-SNAP! isn't that what alot of us have been saying for years? That's what fixing up reciprocity would do for us. I'm thinking we're still going to offer a permit, but hopefully not require one, ala AZ/MT/AK/VT with Iowa's version of reciprocity.

[DeanC]

My comment on that story was:

Raising the MN fee to cover shortfalls due to people getting the UT permit only is the dumbest idea on the planet. You will only drive MORE people to skip the MN permit altogether.

Lower the MN fee and be more competitive. Establish full reciprocity with more states and add value to the MN permit and more people will get it.

And yes, the counties can cut costs. I have studied the county permit budgets and a number of them are obviously inflated.

[plblark]

Except the MN permit fees are LIMITED BY LAW to be $100 or ACTUAL DIRECT EXPENSES, whichever is LESS. Thus ANY revenues in excess of documented, DIRECT expenses are ILLEGAL.

[PHATSPEED7x]

I read about this on my other gun forum. I would of loved to have gotten my UT permit at the same time that I did my MN permit, but my instructor doesn't do the UT permit anymore. My friend currently has a UT permit, but not a MN permit. She plans on taking the MN permit next spring when her UT permit expires.

[cobb]

Except the MN permit fees are LIMITED BY LAW to be $100 or ACTUAL DIRECT EXPENSES, whichever is LESS. Thus ANY revenues in excess of documented, DIRECT expenses are ILLEGAL.

You just have to know how to do creative bookkeeping.