Why does everyone insist on MN PTC?

[Hmac]

The bigger question is, If i can pass the NICS background check why should it matter if i have a PTP, PTC or even be a resident of the state where I am purchasing the firearm when I am purchasing from an FFL?

Because, right now, that's what MN law requires for a handgun or "assault weapon" purchase.
b

There appears to be some concern about the accuracy and timeliness of state data getting into NICS, therefore concern about accuracy of NICS data. My question, when buying a pistol or "modern sporting rifle" is "If I have a PTP or PTC, why do I need to do a NICS check"?

[goalie]

I got a UT carry permit because at the time they were cheaper, recognized in more states, and are even a photo ID. There was just no reason to get Minnesota's extortionately priced laminated piece of paper. I'll have to get a MN before a renew because they cried and threw a fit so now UT won't process out of state renewals without seeing a resident permit, but that's anther story.

Gander Mtn Lakeville already told me I couldn't use UT to purchase, Fleet Farm Lakeville said I could. I don't see why it would matter for a store since the reason MN recognizes it is because they're issued under the same conditions.

But my question is why are so many people unwilling to accept a UT permit, which isn't some obscure document in the carry world, to satisfy the requirement that we place on ourselves, to determine eligibility to purchase?

Just seems a little ridiculous to me.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Treat me good I'll treat you better.
Treat me bad I'll treat you worse.

Respect is a two way street gentlemen.

If you live here, why don't you have a MN permit?

[Mn01r6]

Or at least a FREE P2P.

[Hmac]

If you live here, why don't you have a MN permit?

I got a UT carry permit because at the time they were cheaper, recognized in more states, and are even a photo ID. There was just no reason to get Minnesota's extortionately priced laminated piece of paper.

[mrp]

that's $450.00, which in terms of money spent on guns, ammo, etc, isn't squat really. Are people just that cheap or just that broke? Again, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like it cheaper, but I'm saying that compared to other fees, taxes, etc that we pay, that's not that bad.

You might have a point if we were talking about dabbling in a hobby rather than exercising the fundamental human right of self-defense recognized by the second amendment to the constitution.

[tman]

My question, when buying a pistol or "modern sporting rifle" is "If I have a PTP or PTC, why do I need to do a NICS check"?

James Brady.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

[XDM45]

that's $450.00, which in terms of money spent on guns, ammo, etc, isn't squat really. Are people just that cheap or just that broke? Again, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like it cheaper, but I'm saying that compared to other fees, taxes, etc that we pay, that's not that bad.

You might have a point if we were talking about dabbling in a hobby rather than exercising the fundamental human right of self-defense recognized by the second amendment to the constitution.

The right to self-defense is a fundamental and universal human right.
The right to bear arms is not. It is a constitutional right of the United States.

All people have the aforementioned first right, but only US citizens have the aforementioned latter right guaranteed to them by the 2A and assuming they are legally allowed to possess firearms......and that's just the most obvious difference between the two.

Also remember that self-defense does not only equal a firearm. A firearm is a tool which may legally be used by some people in self-defense, but so is martial arts, negotiation, and there are many such tools available as well. In some ways, each trumps the other, each is superior and inferior to the other, depending on certain variables, conditions, situations, etc. You can't karate kick a bullet, but once you run out of ammo, you're screwed. Those skills are part of the trained person, a gun is not.

[Hmac]

My question, when buying a pistol or "modern sporting rifle" is "If I have a PTP or PTC, why do I need to do a NICS check"?

James Brady.

Obviously. However in some states (21 states) a NICS check isn't required if the purchaser has a valid state handgun permit/permit to acquire/permit to carry. Minnesota isn't one of those states. I wonder why.

[Marble]

My question, when buying a pistol or "modern sporting rifle" is "If I have a PTP or PTC, why do I need to do a NICS check"?

James Brady.

Obviously. However in some states (21 states) a NICS check isn't required if the purchaser has a valid state handgun permit/permit to acquire/permit to carry. Minnesota isn't one of those states. I wonder why.

I wonder what it would take to change that. The ATF website does not have much information on what a state needs to do to qualify for the NICS exemption.

[Hmac]

Obviously. However in some states (21 states) a NICS check isn't required if the purchaser has a valid state handgun permit/permit to acquire/permit to carry. Minnesota isn't one of those states. I wonder why.

I wonder what it would take to change that. The ATF website does not have much information on what a state needs to do to qualify for the NICS exemption.

As I understand it, a NICS check has to check 3 different Federal databases:

--The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes records regarding wanted persons (fugitives) and persons subject to protective/restraining orders;
--The Interstate Identification Index, which contains state criminal history records; and
--The NICS Index, which contains records of other persons prohibited under federal law from receiving or possessing firearms

I don't know if there are other requirements for a state to be NICS-exempt, but apparently there's some component of Minnesota's permit law and background check that ATF doesn't find acceptable. So, I wonder the same thing. It would seem prudent for Minnesota to require a Federal background check in addition to a state check before issuing a PTC or PTP.

I have to go through a NICS check every time I buy a firearm in addition to providing my PTC if the firearm is a pistol or MSR, but the law apparently only requires that you be searched in the database once every 5 years. Not a big deal I guess, since I've found NICS to be pretty transparent at the point-of-purchase. I've had delays on a couple of occasions in the past, but none since I finally decided to start putting my social security number on the 4473.

[DanMN]

I have my MN PTC. I believe that if I went to Utah, I wouldn't be able to purchase a handgun there. Just my guess. Not sure what the OP's issue is. Law is the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bstrawse]

I have my MN PTC. I believe that if I went to Utah, I wouldn't be able to purchase a handgun there. Just my guess. Not sure what the OP's issue is. Law is the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Federal law would prohibit you from making this purchase
b

[SAM]

Everybody pissing and moaning about what it costs----------------------------------------what is yours or your loved one's lives worth.

[NMRMN]

Everybody pissing and moaning about what it costs----------------------------------------what is yours or your loved one's lives worth.

Obviously.

The point is that there is a cost to exercise a constitutional right. Think back to all the arguments you heard last november re: voter id.

[mrp]

that's $450.00, which in terms of money spent on guns, ammo, etc, isn't squat really. Are people just that cheap or just that broke? Again, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like it cheaper, but I'm saying that compared to other fees, taxes, etc that we pay, that's not that bad.

You might have a point if we were talking about dabbling in a hobby rather than exercising the fundamental human right of self-defense recognized by the second amendment to the constitution.

The right to self-defense is a fundamental and universal human right.
The right to bear arms is not. It is a constitutional right of the United States.

All people have the aforementioned first right, but only US citizens have the aforementioned latter right guaranteed to them by the 2A and assuming they are legally allowed to possess firearms......and that's just the most obvious difference between the two.

Also remember that self-defense does not only equal a firearm. A firearm is a tool which may legally be used by some people in self-defense, but so is martial arts, negotiation, and there are many such tools available as well. In some ways, each trumps the other, each is superior and inferior to the other, depending on certain variables, conditions, situations, etc. You can't karate kick a bullet, but once you run out of ammo, you're screwed. Those skills are part of the trained person, a gun is not.

In a country where guns are ubiquitous, it can be argued that a gun is necessary to effective defend oneself. Negotiation and martial arts have their place, but are in no way sufficient. Only people who get their martial arts training from movies and comic books thinks that it's a viable defense against a significantly larger and stronger attacker, an armed attacker, or multiple attackers.

And even if you disagree with that, you might want to read Heller, in which SCOTUS says:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely under-stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”