New Firearm Transfer Laws

So the new transfer laws went into effect yesterday in MN. I tried finding some good info on what the new rules require for personal transfers. The MN Gun Owners Caucus had the most info but doesn’t mention anything about the actual background check, just a from that you have to keep for ten years and the person buying has to have a permit to purchase. Any more info on what a person to person transfer require now? Does a Permit to Carry still count as a permit to purchase?

No idea. Recommend calling a sheriff to discuss; don’t bother with Ramsey county, they don’t even know the MN gun laws and I’ve personally had them make up incorrect “rules” on the phone, my favorite being “you need to turn in your MN PTC because MN doesn’t issue non-resident PTC’s”. At that point I knew I’d never call them trying to better understand a MN gun law again.

Dakota county has been helpful in my experience, or try one of the more rural counties anywhere outside of hennepin or ramsey.

I would think the permit to Carry would also act as a permit to purchase. In the past the permit to carry always trumped the permit to purchase. Most people I know who have a permit to carry did so because they did not want to keep updating their Permit to purchase. I believe the permit to purchase was only valid for 1 year. The permit to carry is valid for 5 years.

Basically need to work through a FFL dealer. They do the background check. Both parties need either a permit to purchase or permit to carry.

Remember, you need to do the FFL transfer even if you are loaning the gun for a short period of time.

Nothing needed to gift a gun to a family member.

-J.

Something also to keep in mind is that this rule only applies to pistols/handguns and pistol-gripped firearms (like pistol grip shotguns or ARs). Does not apply to standard long guns that do not have a pistol grip.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Remember, you need to do the FFL transfer even if you are loaning the gun for a short period of time.

So if a buddy wanted to borrow a slug gun for the shotgun zone you would to do a transfer for that? Crazy.

Youbetcha wrote:

So if a buddy wanted to borrow a slug gun for the shotgun zone you would to do a transfer for that? Crazy.

No, a shotgun without a pistol grip does not apply to this new rule.

Got it. Thanks for the info

I believe that any gun that has a detachable magazine forces you to do a transfer form which I was told might take weeks to get back.

Youbetcha wrote:

Got it. Thanks for the info

Sorry, I was wrong about this. You cannot lend someone a firearm of any kind for recreational purposes UNLESS you accompany them.

One of the main changes includes the expansion of background checks for gun sales.

Minnesota now requires both the owner and the buyer to fill out a detailed transfer record about themselves and the firearm.

Additionally, law enforcement has 30 days to process the sale, rather than the previous seven-day period.

Among the new restrictions, gun owners are no longer allowed to lend their firearms to others, preventing friends and family from handing over their rifles or shotguns for recreational purposes.

However, an exception exists for hunting trips, where the owner must accompany the person borrowing the firearm during hunting hours.

Those interested in purchasing a pistol or military-style rifle are now required to obtain a permit before completing the transaction.

I believe that any gun that has a detachable magazine forces you to do a transfer form which I was told might take weeks to get back.

Also this scares me-

Sec. 17. [624.7137] PURCHASE OR TRANSFER OF MORE THAN ONE FIREARM
PER 30 DAYS PROHIBITED.
Subdivision 1. Gross misdemeanor. (a) A person who purchases or accepts the transfer
of more than one firearm within a 30-day period is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Jason wrote:

I believe that any gun that has a detachable magazine forces you to do a transfer form which I was told might take weeks to get back.

Also this scares me-

Sec. 17. [624.7137] PURCHASE OR TRANSFER OF MORE THAN ONE FIREARM
PER 30 DAYS PROHIBITED.
Subdivision 1. Gross misdemeanor. (a) A person who purchases or accepts the transfer
of more than one firearm within a 30-day period is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Where are you seeing this?

Jason wrote:

Also this scares me-

Sec. 17. [624.7137] PURCHASE OR TRANSFER OF MORE THAN ONE FIREARM
PER 30 DAYS PROHIBITED.
Subdivision 1. Gross misdemeanor. (a) A person who purchases or accepts the transfer
of more than one firearm within a 30-day period is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

I cannot find anything about this 1 in 30 policy going into effect. Where did you find it?

I’m not sure if that was the language of the bill as it was introduced or how it got passed. The poop is confusing to understand…

Jason wrote:

I’m not sure if that was the language of the bill as it was introduced or how it got passed. The poop is confusing to understand…

The way its worded makes me think that was the original legislation before they revised it.

Jason wrote:

I’m not sure if that was the language of the bill as it was introduced or how it got passed. The poop is confusing to understand…

Laws like this are made to turn innocent people into criminals. Iowa has constitutional carry, so we don’t even need a carry permit. I still renew mine for when I’m traveling with my carry weapon. Probably would be best to read the law in it’s entirety, as the politicians that passed it probably don’t even know what’s in the law, that happens sometimes.

This is kind of like the fishing regulations in Minnesota. It changes often, its worded badly, and you have no where to go to try and get correct answers.

Fishthumper I usually can get all the proper info by using actual legislation and the language there, but there were 6 bills passed for this change, and even the actual language seems vague. Starting to think that these rule changes were written so poorly on purpose. Don’t think the media really helps either when they keep saying expanded background checks, I don’t think any background check takes place between person to person transfers just a form that has to be filled out and kept for 10 years.

Riverrat wrote:

I don’t think any background check takes place between person to person transfers just a form that has to be filled out and kept for 10 years.

Background checks definitely passed.

-J.

Gun registry is next for places that aren’t careful with who they elect.

Steven Krapfl wrote:

Gun registry is next for places that aren’t careful with who they elect.

Mine are already registered. I was required to pass a background and mental health check for every firearm I purchased. Doesn’t bother me one bit, I’ve got nothing to hide.

Not loaning to a friend is even more ridiculous than the other stipulations. I advocate non-compliance to unjust laws.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Steven Krapfl wrote:</div>
Gun registry is next for places that aren’t careful with who they elect.

Mine are already registered. I was required to pass a background and mental health check for every firearm I purchased. Doesn’t bother me one bit, I’ve got nothing to hide.

If you buy a .22 Ruger, you have to have a mental health check ?

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Steven Krapfl wrote:</div>
Gun registry is next for places that aren’t careful with who they elect.

Mine are already registered. I was required to pass a background and mental health check for every firearm I purchased. Doesn’t bother me one bit, I’ve got nothing to hide.

Yes and No. Unless you are different than a normal purchaser, the Nics background check is not a form of registery. Even though some think of it as such.
We may get to the point of a true gun Registration and to be honest, I don’t really care all that much about that one. The day they attempt to take the next step to confiscate guns from law abiding citizen’s is the day the Poop will really hit the fan. I don’t think even the craziest politician thinks that will end well.

fishthumper wrote:

I don’t think even the craziest politician thinks that will end well.

I don’t think any politician with an agenda really cares what the outcome is as long as he gets his baby passed. Apparently, none of them have raad the Bill of Rights or gives a schnit about the Bill. Its all party line. Period. Both sides of the aisle.

Jimmy Jones wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
I don’t think even the craziest politician thinks that will end well.

I don’t think any politician with an agenda really cares what the outcome is as long as he gets his baby passed. Apparently, none of them have raad the Bill of Rights or gives a schnit about the Bill. Its all party line. Period. Both sides of the aisle.

No disagreement there. I just think even they realize that gun confiscation will not end well for anyone. If they choose to try it, it will become real interesting.

fishthumper wrote:

The day they attempt to take the next step to confiscate guns from law abiding citizen’s is the day the Poop will really hit the fan. I don’t think even the craziest politician thinks that will end well.

Agree