Mn Permit to Carry Satisfies Background Check

View · by **MNIceMan** on Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:08 pm

http://www.startribune.com/atf-minnesot ... 420780223/

If it expires after August 1 2019.

View · by **Ghost** on Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:46 pm

Damn, mine expires next year

View · by **gun_fan111v2** on Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:07 pm

Great news!!! I hope the FFLs will adopt it. Do they have a choice in the matter?

View · by **george** on Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:50 pm

I haven't received a letter yet and would not consider without it, The consequences are to great.
This is the first I've heard of it but I think it's great. I am surprised considering no picture on permit, that was one
of the reasons it didn't before.

View · by **yukonjasper** on Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:07 pm

Sorry to be obtuse but does this mean you don't have to wait for the NICS call and clearance?

View · by **wasfuzz** on Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:00 pm

As I read the ruling it means the FFL "MAY chose" to just complete a 4473 as long as the buyer has a Permit to Carry. The State Atty General was notified in late Feb this was happening. There are several other states that already have this available.

View · by **IDPA Shooter** on Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:26 pm

We have this now in AZ. We also have no photo on the permit, so your DL or state ID , which has photos is also required. Most places Xerox them and file that with the 4473 form.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

View · by **jshuberg** on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:04 pm

It took several years, but this was the result of the work of Prof Joe Olson of GOCRA back in 2013. What happened was that state law became the same as federal law with regard to the Brady act, and that the background check performed by the Sheriff annually for permit holders satisfies the background check requirement in the Brady act, so a separate NICS check at purchase time is unnecessary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **MJY65** on Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:27 am

If the check is updated annually, what is the significance of the expiration date on this rule? Aren't we all now being evaluated by the new standard regardless of when the permit was issued?

View · by **atomic41** on Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:30 pm

MJY65 wrote:If the check is updated annually, what is the significance of the expiration date on this rule? Aren't we all now being evaluated by the new standard regardless of when the permit was issued?

I have the same question, what is different with permits issued on earlier dates?

View · by **snatiep** on Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:23 pm

This is good news for us with our Minnesota Permit to Carry and a UPIN number that still get delayed occasionally!

View · by **jshuberg** on Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:28 pm

The date is based on when the bill passed in 2013 and became law. They could have worded that it applies to any permit issued after the date we came into compliance, but instead worded it as expires after the 5 year anniversary of when it became law. Probably just to confuse people.

My understanding is that the Brady bill was worded in such a way that if a permit is issued where the background check performed satisfies the Brady act requirements, that subsequent checks for each purchase is unnecessary. But it's based on state law being compliant at the time the permit was issued. So even though the sheriffs will perform Brady compliant checks on permit holders annually now, unless the permit itself was issued after we became compliant it doesn't matter. So some folks are going to have to wait for their permit to expire and then be renewed to take advantage.

I'm not a lawyer though, so my understanding might be a simplified version of all the lawyerly things involved with this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Mon May 01, 2017 4:49 am

jshuberg wrote:The date is based on when the bill passed in 2013 and became law. They could have worded that it applies to any permit issued after the date we came into compliance, but instead worded it as expires after the 5 year anniversary of when it became law. Probably just to confuse people.

My understanding is that the Brady bill was worded in such a way that if a permit is issued where the background check performed satisfies the Brady act requirements, that subsequent checks for each purchase is unnecessary. But it's based on state law being compliant at the time the permit was issued. So even though the sheriffs will perform Brady compliant checks on permit holders annually now, unless the permit itself was issued after we became compliant it doesn't matter. So some folks are going to have to wait for their permit to expire and then be renewed to take advantage.

I'm not a lawyer though, so my understanding might be a simplified version of all the lawyerly things involved with this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other words, the law is so complicated and confusing, dealers will require a background check anyway to avoid making a mistake.

View · by **usnret** on Mon May 01, 2017 8:51 am

What's the big deal about a dealer doing a background check? It takes about 5 to 10 minutes on the phone with NICIS.

View · by **FJ540** on Mon May 01, 2017 10:16 am

usnret wrote:What's the big deal about a dealer doing a background check? It takes about 5 to 10 minutes on the phone with NICIS.

If you can get through, and if the system is not down at the time.

"Shall not be infringed" comes to mind too. This shouldn't be needed at all, but since we're stuck with liberals feel good restrictions, this is a step in the right direction.

Thank you Joe!