MN Drops AR, OH, OK and TN. . . MO Now Permitless Carry State

[Gary Slider]

Missouri’s new law goes into effect 1/1/17 allowing permitless carry. Their new law doesn’t state you don’t need a permit but now states the Unlawful Carrying of a Firearm only applies to someone carrying a firearm into one of the places listed in state statute that is off limits by statute. Carry on posted private property is listed as a place off limits but that is the only place they have to ask you to leave first before a person carrying under permitless carry would be in violation of the law. You can see that listing

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf or

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/Publications/Brochures/documents/SHP-863.pdf

The Minnesota BCA has released a new list of states Minnesota will Honor.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/pages/permit-to-carry-reciprocity.aspx

They have removed Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Minnesota will no longer honor those four states permits. They stated this in the email they sent out.

“After researching the laws of other states and communicating with their representatives, four states are no longer eligible for reciprocity because their state laws include age and training exemptions that are “NOT similar” to Minnesota laws that mandate a minimum age of 21 and require specific Permit to Carry training for all applicants. These states are: Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.”

www.handgunlaw.us will be updated with the changes stated above early on January 1, 2017. Handgunlaw.us hopes the New Year brings you all you hope for!

Edit:
I should have stated in my post that Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee will continue to honor Minnesota. Those four states honor all other states permit/licenses.

 

[Mousegun]

That is a step backwards. I wonder if the NRA will look into this? I know they probably can't do much about it but it would let MN know someone big is watching.

In the days of expanded gun regulations in many parts of the country, this is a true setback.

 

[Speedo66]

While your work is extremely commendable, how is the average citizen expected to stay legal and keep up with variations in permit laws that seem to change on an almost daily basis?

 

[Gary Slider]

Your question is the main reason Steve and I started Handgunlaw.us It is very difficult to keep up with the laws especially with us being very mobile. Even after doing this for 20 years I still get confused and still can't understand what some laws actually say or mean!!!!

 

[HexHead]

For TN, this is because they will allow veterans between the ages of 18-21 to get a Handgun Carry Permit as of 1/1/17. Also, members of the military are waived from part of the handgun carry class.

Let no good deed go unpunished.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

While your work is extremely commendable, how is the average citizen expected to stay legal and keep up with variations in permit laws that seem to change on an almost daily basis?

While Gary's site handgunlaw.us is an invaluable resource for this, the ultimate responsibility for this is, and always has been, on the shoulders of the individual. After all, YOU are the one who will pay the price for violating some statute.

When you travel do your research. In general, each state's statutes are accessable online and the statute references themselves (meaning the numbers and titles) rarely change...rather, they are amended to change wording, add subsections, or delete subsections.

Fortunately, one of the things handgunlaw.us does very well is cite those referenced statutes so you can go directly to them yourself and see what they say at any given moment.

In general, I think the most important issues to know are reciprocity, particulars on the off-limits places, "no weapons" posting laws, must inform laws (heaven forbid you get a speeding ticket), legal stowage of firearms in vehicles, and laws on firearms in hotel rooms. (You may have others to add to this list.)

We don't have to memorize everything...just know enough to know what the important differences are and when we need to first check up on something that piques our "maybe I oughta check on this" thoughts.


Oh, and Gary...thank you very much for such a concise, and consistent, reference website and all the hard work that goes into maintaining it so well.

 

[Squire Western]

Thank you, Gary Slider, for providing so much valuable information.

It's vastly appreciated. Steve Akins is included!

 

[harrygunner]

Congratulations to Missouri.

The Minnesota BCA sees over seventy-percent of the country being dissimilar?

I've taken CCW classes in a state they accept and four they reject. My feeble mind can't tell the difference.

 

[steve4102]

When researching State Carry Laws and Reciprocity Agreements, one thing that seems to get lost or forgotten is Federal Law. Specifically the Gun Free School Zone Act.
Even if a State Honors your "out-of-State" permit the federal Government does not when it come to school zones.

Whether it is rarely enforced or not, the GFSZA is still a federal Law and it is Illegal to carry a loaded firearm on public property within 1000 feet of school property, without a State Issued Licence to carry and a Background Check by Law Enforcement authorities.

Now that MO has offered the permitless option, those that carry within 1000 feet of a school on public property without a permit, are subject to Felony Charges.

 

[Squire Western]

When researching State Carry Laws and Reciprocity Agreements, one thing that seems to get lost or forgotten is Federal Law. Specifically the Gun Free School Zone Act.
Even if a State Honors your "out-of-State" permit the federal Government does not when it come to school zones.

Whether it is rarely enforced or not, the GFSZA is still a federal Law and it is Illegal to carry a loaded firearm on public property within 1000 feet of school property, without a State Issued Licence to carry and a Background Check by Law Enforcement authorities.

Now that MO has offered the permitless option, those that carry within 1000 feet of a school on public property without a permit, are subject to Felony Charges.

An excellent reminder. Since Congress addressed Lopez vs USA in 1995 and re-instituted the 1000 foot GFSZA via the Commerce Clause, this has been the case.

 

[denton]

laws on firearms in hotel rooms

Tricky business. If an out of state hotel insists that you keep your firearm in their office safe, you have a problem. Giving them control of the firearm is transferring possession. That's one felony for you, and another for the hotel.

I wish someone would finally clarify the status of the GFSZA for me. SCOTUS struck down the law, since it was a federal intrusion into a state issue. Congress insignificantly modified the law, and passed it again. I have my strong doubts about the current law's validity, but would not want to bet the ranch on the outcome of litigation.

Here in Utah, if you strictly enforced the law you could probably put around 10,000 hunters in jail during deer, elk, turkey, goose, and pronghorn seasons. It's almost impossible to drive any distance, passing through small towns, without being within 1,000 feet of a school.

 

[Squire Western]

laws on firearms in hotel rooms

Tricky business. If an out of state hotel insists that you keep your firearm in their office safe, you have a problem. Giving them control of the firearm is transferring possession. That's one felony for you, and another for the hotel.

I wish someone would finally clarify the status of the GFSZA for me. SCOTUS struck down the law, since it was a federal intrusion into a state issue. Congress insignificantly modified the law, and passed it again. I have my strong doubts about the current law's validity, but would not want to bet the ranch on the outcome of litigation.

Here in Utah, if you strictly enforced the law you could probably put around 10,000 hunters in jail during deer, elk, turkey, goose, and pronghorn seasons. It's almost impossible to drive any distance, passing through small towns, without being within 1,000 feet of a school.

All true, Denton. And where have we read of a test case in the 21 years since 1995? It may be there, somewhere. If someone here knows,please enlighten us.

Lopez should still stand. Yet the BATFE says no. It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, as the great man said..

 

[steve4102]

laws on firearms in hotel rooms

Tricky business. If an out of state hotel insists that you keep your firearm in their office safe, you have a problem. Giving them control of the firearm is transferring possession. That's one felony for you, and another for the hotel.

I wish someone would finally clarify the status of the GFSZA for me. SCOTUS struck down the law, since it was a federal intrusion into a state issue. Congress insignificantly modified the law, and passed it again. I have my strong doubts about the current law's validity, but would not want to bet the ranch on the outcome of litigation.

Here in Utah, if you strictly enforced the law you could probably put around 10,000 hunters in jail during deer, elk, turkey, goose, and pronghorn seasons. It's almost impossible to drive any distance, passing through small towns, without being within 1,000 feet of a school.

Unloaded and in a locked container.

 

[steve4102]

I wish someone would finally clarify the status of the GFSZA for me. SCOTUS struck down the law, since it was a federal intrusion into a state issue. Congress insignificantly modified the law, and passed it again. I have my strong doubts about the current law's validity, but would not want to bet the ranch on the outcome of litigation.

UNITED STATES v. DANKS
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1296266.html

Danks argues that the amended Act is still unconstitutional under Lopez, because the mere insertion of a “commerce nexus” does not cure the original Act's defect.   Reviewing the constitutionality of the amended Act de novo, see United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1104 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 884, 117 S.Ct. 215, 136 L.Ed.2d 149 (1996), we conclude that Danks's Lopez challenge fails.   In United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1125, 116 S.Ct. 1364, 134 L.Ed.2d 530 (1996), we upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (criminalizing act of being felon in possession of firearm) against a Lopez challenge.   We concluded that, because section 922(g) contains an interstate-commerce requirement, i.e., the firearm in question must have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce, the statute ensures through case-by-case inquiry that the firearm in question affects interstate commerce.

There are others found here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

 

[denton]

Interesting read. Thanks.

 

[Squire Western]

Good info, Steve4102. My thanks also.