Some folks have asked what "The Reciprocity Problem" is.


How Minnesota Reciprocity Works
Minnesota's carry law, as passed in 2003 and as repassed in 2005, says that the state will allow permit holders from other states to carry here, provided that their state's permit issuance standards are "substantially similar" to Minnesota's.

The law requires the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, who is appointed by the governor, to annually publish a list of states whose issuance standards are not substantially similar. The rest of the states' citizens get carry rights here.

Why it Matters
The impact of this goes beyond whether our visitors from other states can carry here, although that's an important impact: self defense is for everyone, even Iowans.

Granting carry rights to other states' residents in many cases automatically grants to Minnesota permit holders the right to carry in those states. Does anyone doubt that a LOT of Minnesotans may pay a winter visit to, for example, Florida?

The Current State of Affairs
Right now, the DPS has listed four states whose issuance standards are substantially similar. This list has been little changed since issued the first time by former DPS Commissioner Rich Stanek, who was later forced to resign when his on-the-record evidence of making racist remarks came to light.

Four states? Can that be?

Not under any reasonable interpretation of the law. "Substantially similar" means, well, close, but not exactly.

With a great deal of help from Pakrat in gathering sources, I looked at all fifty state's laws relating to issuance standards for carry permits (where they existed, of course).

Minnesota's issuance standards are pretty simple: You have to have to pass a background check, you have to be 21, and you have to take training.

Looking for states that meet those standards, I found 25.

Not four. Twenty-five.

So What's the Holdup?
Good question. For one thing, the commissioner's office admitted to using a set of criteria that far exceeded their authority, adding supralegal requirements like 24/7 access to permit status (not an issuance standard), and requiring other states' criteria to "meet or exceed" Minnesota standards -- a far cry from "substantially similar".

Here is the DPS document:


In February, Joel Rosenberg identified the reciprocity issue as one of four legislative priorities. He proposed removing that discretion from the DPS, since they were clearly abusing it.

Well, Tim Grant of AACFI and CCRN was given early access to Joel's proposals (as did everyone reading this forum), and Tim apparently went immediately to the legislature and started poisoning the well against any chance of those issues being addressed.

CCRN further decided at about that time to take on the reciprocity issue with the Pawlenty administration themselves.

To date, there has been no visible signs of any success. The DPS is still flouting the law, and refusing to do their damn jobs.

We're not talking about political favors, here. We're talking about JUST FOLLOWING THE LAW.

It is tremendously disappointing that the Pawlenty administration, which did so much to get the law passed, has done so little to make sure that is is administered according to the terms of the law.

Thanks for posting... I now understand the issue surrounding reciprocity. At the same time though, something as subjective as "substantially similar," just screams to be abused, particularly by a non-elected individual.

Absolutely. It was a ripe area for change, and indeed might have been changed, before the deliberate sabotage by CCRN's Tim Grant.

Which are your 21 other states, Andrew?


Exactly how did Tim sabotage it? Why would he do that?

I sent this message to Andrew Rothman at 6:42 pm yesterday.

>>> The reciprocity problem ... has been solved. The action will take place gradually, after the election but it will occur.

If you are willing to keep them CONFIDENTIAL (as in deep, deep background), call me for details.

Joe 612-865-7956 <<<

Andrew did not call me so that he could become acquainted with the actual details. Instead he posted a very deceptive message about half a hour ago (1:17pm).

Here is what he said.
>>> CCRN further decided at about that time to take on the reciprocity issue with the Pawlenty administration themselves.

To date, there has been no visible signs of any success. The DPS is still flouting the law, and refusing to do their damn jobs." <<<

Andrew is being deceptive to feather his own nest. All the facts are within his grasp but KNOWING what's going on won't forward his anti-CCRN agenda. I suppose he can't handle the inconvenient truth. So he prefers to deceive you, his readers.

This will probably derail the solution to the "reciprocity problem" and undercut my credibility with politicians but I'll make this much public.

CCRN's registered lobbiest and Tim Grant have had meetings with high ranking officials of both gubernatorial candidates and received clear assurances that this internal problem will be solved whoever wins. In addition, I have had four long telephone calls and a "meaningful" meeting with the staff. There are more details but I'm not going to reveal them on this public forum. Unless this unexpected publicity undercuts the negotiations, the "reciprocity probelem" has been solved but you won't see the results immediately.

I know this won't satisfy those of you who have been taken in by the long course of little deceptions but anyone who knows anything about political negotiations (lobbying) knows that they do not take place on the front page of the Strib nor on a public forum like this one.

Before my meeting on Friday, CCRN requested Andrew to share his list of 24 states and the backup data he and Packrat compiled. It would have been nice to have had it at the meeting with state staff.

But Andrew never responded.

Is that your reason for Hatch's high grade?

If someone has exception to the way CCRN is handleing an issue, which Andrew has on this forum, why would he turn over his list of states that he spent his time and effort compiling.

If you are the mouthpiece for the carry community, when dealing with those at State, why did'nt you have the facts before going into the meeting?

I'm not asking for the process to be scuttled by loose lips...........but something is sure rotten in Denmark!!!

I feel like I'm watching "Rashomon."

I had the facts, just not Andrew's nice written compliation which he had mentioned at the Tuesday night meeting.

Dang you "Old Dude," I had to Google "Rashomon" to get it..
Is there a mole amongst the "pro-MCPPA" group? I just hope I am not witnessing an anti-gun strategy of ... "why should we fight them if we can get them to fight each other" (or one of the various other forms of that statement with similar intent).

Okay if I answer the second question? (I guess you'll have to ask Tim as to his motivation.) Short answer: immediately upon his receipt (sent at his request; he'd heard I was going to propose something, for reasons I've gone into) of an advance draft of the proposal, Tim went to several legislators to shout that the sky would fall if this went forward. He took the in excess of a month that I had given him -- in between giving him the draft and the CCRN meeting to discuss it -- to lobby against it, mainly behind closed doors.

I think that's about the nicest way to put it.

I'll encourage Andrew and/or Pakrat to post the spreadsheet here, when they get around to it; far as I know, there's no secret to it.

As you might have guessed, Joe, I'm tempted to delete your message on the grounds of it being a personal attack.

But, in deference to your distinguished career of service to the community, I'll merely point out to you that your contention is absurd. (Okay, yeah, I guess that's not much deference.)

It isn't "deceptive" to not have received private confidences, and not act on information in those private confidences that has not been received.

Words have meanings; that isn't one of them.

There are are real problems in accepting confidences, in listening to things off the record and on deep background; there are also, of course, advantages.

As you've just demonstrated, there are problems with that, even for you.

And "feathering his nest"? Eh? Andrew's "nest," such as it is, is the first and largest nonprofit carry permit instructor organization; at the moment -- see http://madfi.org/sheriff.asp -- it consists of 42 instructors (many of them, including myself, with additional qualifying certifications), who pay MADFI $50 every five years for additional training, and $25 for maintaining certification. Assuming (as turns out not to be the case) that there is zero cost in conducting instruction and maintaining the instructor list, and that all monies so collected were to go to Andrew to compensate him for the time he spends, that works out to $1470/year, max, even assuming that, for some unknowable reason, he would think that disagreeing with you would cause all that to happen.

Some "nest," eh?

Actually, it reminds me more of an episode of "Coupling," where we see Patrick meeting the two girls for the first time from Patrick's point of view -- and it appears to be internally, err, inconsistent -- then see it from the girls' POV, where it all starts to make sense.

I sometimes teach Securities Regulation. Saying there are no "visible" signs of progress when you know there are undisclosed signs or you knowingly fail to look for them is facially accurate but deceptive in that it fails to state a fact necessary to prevent the original statement from being misleading. Exactly as I think Andrew intended. If he were selling stock, ... .

Actually, I wasn't thinking about MADFI. I never think about MADFI.

What I was thinking about is whatever it is that makes Andrew work so hard to undercut the successful efforts of others at the Capitol. For every positive thing he does (and there are a lot), Andrew does something that makes anyone's lobbying job at the Capitol more difficult.

If he, or you Joel, want to take the responsibility, develop the expertise, and spend the time and effort in St. Paul (distracting you from your job and for no pay), step up to the plate in January. Become a registered lobbiest and carry the load for the next twenty years (in good years and in bad years).

I'm 60, I'm over 60 - I don't need to fight our enemies and my so-called "friends" too.