Purchasing question

[grimbeaver]

That's right, we should all just be happy we have the privilege to exercise our unalienable rights.

Guess I'm in the minority that I don't consider the right to bear arms an "unalienable right". I personally sleep a little better at night knowing that our country doesn't allow criminals and the mentally ill to walk into a gun shop and purchase whatever they want.

[Heffay]

That's right, we should all just be happy we have the privilege to exercise our unalienable rights.

Guess I'm in the minority that I don't consider the right to bear arms an "unalienable right". I personally sleep a little better at night knowing that our country doesn't allow criminals and the mentally ill to walk into a gun shop and purchase whatever they want.

It's amazing how some people want one right to have absolutely no limits, but they can't put enough limitations on other rights.

[goett047]

That's right, we should all just be happy we have the privilege to exercise our unalienable rights.

Guess I'm in the minority that I don't consider the right to bear arms an "unalienable right". I personally sleep a little better at night knowing that our country doesn't allow criminals and the mentally ill to walk into a gun shop and purchase whatever they want.

It's amazing how some people want one right to have absolutely no limits, but they can't put enough limitations on other rights.

Like you and voting???? Its amazing the amount of blatant hypocrisy you can bring to the table.

[grimbeaver]

That's right, we should all just be happy we have the privilege to exercise our unalienable rights.

Guess I'm in the minority that I don't consider the right to bear arms an "unalienable right". I personally sleep a little better at night knowing that our country doesn't allow criminals and the mentally ill to walk into a gun shop and purchase whatever they want.

It's amazing how some people want one right to have absolutely no limits, but they can't put enough limitations on other rights.

Sorry but I don't follow your point as a response to my comment.

[Hmac]

That's right, we should all just be happy we have the privilege to exercise our unalienable rights.

Guess I'm in the minority that I don't consider the right to bear arms an "unalienable right". I personally sleep a little better at night knowing that our country doesn't allow criminals and the mentally ill to walk into a gun shop and purchase whatever they want.

The right of self defense has been considered a "natural right" of humanity for almost all of human history.

[Heffay]

Sorry but I don't follow your point as a response to my comment.

I'm agreeing with you.

I'm fine with not letting wifebeaters own handguns.

[Heffay]

The right of self defense has been considered a "natural right" of humanity for almost all of human history.

What does the right to self defense and guns have to do with each other?

[Hmac]

It's amazing how some people want one right to have absolutely no limits, but they can't put enough limitations on other rights.

I don't think it's "amazing" at all. We all, you included, want certain rights (the ones we disagree with) to have limits while we favor no limits on the rights we agree with. The fact that you're "amazed" at that does suggest a certain level of hypocrisy.

[Hmac]

The right of self defense has been considered a "natural right" of humanity for almost all of human history.

What does the right to self defense and guns have to do with each other?

A rhetorical question, no doubt.

[Heffay]

The right of self defense has been considered a "natural right" of humanity for almost all of human history.

What does the right to self defense and guns have to do with each other?

A rhetorical question, no doubt.

Exactly. You still have the right to self defense even if you lose your right to own a handgun.

[Heffay]

It's amazing how some people want one right to have absolutely no limits, but they can't put enough limitations on other rights.

I don't think it's "amazing" at all. We all, you included, want certain rights (the ones we disagree with) to have limits while we favor no limits on the rights we agree with. The fact that you're "amazed" at that does suggest a certain level of hypocrisy.

Which rights do I think need more limits? I'm pretty sure I'm ok with more rights to own guns (suppressors for example), and I'm ok with more rights to vote (felons for example).

[jshuberg]

Violent felons are justly denied the right to bear arms. However, to become a felon you must have undergone a legal process, where you the individual had your specific actions evaluated, had your day in court, and were given the opportunity to present your side. By due process any right can be stripped from a person, up to and including the right to life itself.

Privileges are granted by the government, and can be denied certain groups of people without individual due process. If the MN state legislature were to decide that only taxpayers or landowners should be entitled to vote, they could legally make that change. Don't confuse voting with suffrage, which is the right to representation in government. It was debated whether the right to suffrage was an extension of individual rights, or of property rights. It was eventually determined that the right to representation was an extension of property rights. When a persons property is seized by the government in the form of taxation, the person being taxed has a right to a voice in how their money is spent. As white male heads of household were the principal taxpayers, it was they that were originally granted the entitlement of voting. That entitlement has subsequently been granted to most other citizens as well, but that doesn't mean that voting is a fundamental right. It's not.

I have a friend who is a Canadian resident alien. He can call his representative and voice his opinion. He can petition for a redress of grievance. He has people who are charged with representing his interests in government. However, he cannot vote. Representation is a right, voting is an entitlement.

[Heffay]

Again, the first step in taking away someone's right is to try to convince them that it isn't a right.

For example, there is no right to have a suppressor. It is a privilege reserved for government employees.

See how easy that is?

[connsolo]

Political navel gazing aside, can't they just run all the necessary paperwork at the retailer level and make you wait the requisite number of days? I thought they could do this but chose not to because it's a pain.

[george]

Political navel gazing aside, can't they just run all the necessary paperwork at the retailer level and make you wait the requisite number of days? I thought they could do this but chose not to because it's a pain.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/firearms-permit-to-purchase-transfer.aspx
Option 2
you want to make a one-time purchase of a handgun from a dealer and you do not have a permit to purchase, you may apply directly at the gun shop where you will purchase the handgun. The gun shop will require you to complete a consent form that allows them to conduct a name and date-of-birth background check to determine your eligibility to purchase a gun. The gun shops are entitled to charge a fee for this service.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/firearms.pdf
Purchasing a Pistol or Assault
Weapon without a Permit
If a pistol or assault weapon purchaser does not have a
transferee permit at the time of sale, the federally licensed
firearms dealer may not transfer the weapon to the purchaser
immediately. Instead, the firearms dealer must submit a
transfer report to the police chief or sheriff in the area where
the purchaser resides, containing the same information
required on the transferee permit application form.
Upon receipt of the transfer report, the law enforcement
agency must investigate to determine whether the purchaser
is prohibited from possessing a pistol or assault weapon.
Unless the law enforcement agency waives all or part of the
waiting period, the dealer may not transfer the weapon to the
purchaser for five business days, nor transfer the weapon to
the purchaser at all if the agency identifies the purchaser as
ineligible to possess the weapon. If no notice of
disqualification is received within five business days, the
pistol or assault weapon may be delivered to the purchaser.
A notice of disqualification may be appealed to the local
district court.

Basically your applying for the Purchase Permit anyway so one may as well get the year P2P from the sheriff, It' free.
And as you say, not all shops will offer the option.