ND proposal would allow gun owners to carry without permit

North Dakota is going to consider doing away with required permits to carry guns in the state.

The Grand Forks Herald reports a group of Republican lawmakers has filed a bill that would allow people to carry guns unless prohibited by law.

Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, says gun owners could still get a permit — and undergo the required training — if they want to.

“Many people, including me, would want to be able to have reciprocity with other states,” he told the paper. “If this passes, I could conceal carry without a permit in North Dakota, (but) I can’t anywhere else.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Kelly Armstrong, R-Dickinson, said he supports the legislation, but he wants to make sure reciprocity with other states is unaffected.

House Minority Leader Corey Mock, D-Grand Forks, said he wants to strike a balance between gun rights and public safety. He added the training involved in obtaining a concealed weapon license helps people understand their responsibilities.

“I think everyone that I’ve spoken to who’s had it, myself included, really benefits from going through the permitting process,” he said. “I would like to find some way we can incorporate education if we’re going to discuss any changes to this law.”

  • MrE85

    THAT should solve the problem, whatever it is.

  • Will

    Sounds like a pretty good idea.

    • Rob

      //Sounds like a pretty good idea// for even more accidental deaths.

    • kevins

      Again…you are kidding, right?

  • Gary F

    Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Vermont, West Virginia all say the 2nd Amendment is your permit to carry.

    And now North Dakota! OMG!

    I can see them all turning into Chicago, Baltimore, NYC and Camdens!

    • Is there value in the required safety courses that states attach to a permit? Do those states require them in school?

      • BReynolds33

        I’ve taken the required “safety” course here in Minnesota. Plus the firearm safety course kids take at 11 years old. The course to get a carry permit is ridiculously stupid, teaches no more safety than “hey, don’t shoot someone, OK?” and gives about 5 minutes of firearm instruction.

        Firearm safety class at 11 was far more valuable.

      • Rob

        The state of Minnesota certainly thinks there is, and IMHO as a person with a MN PTC, the state is right. A huge reason that Minnesota doesn’t have reciprocity on gun carry with a lot of states is that the safety training requirements in those states is considered to be inadequate – where it exists at all. Sadly, ND wouldn’t be the first state where the only requirement for obtaining a PTC is the ability to fog a mirror.

        • Mitch Berg

          “only requirement for obtaining a PTC is the ability to fog a mirror.”

          Not sure what you’re referring to. Getting a PTC in North Dakota today requires (IIRC) a written safety test and a clean criminal record.

          And being able to legally carry in states that don’t require permits requires…a clean criminal record. Which is a little more than “fogging mirror”.

          • Rob

            The post is about NDs proposal to drop its requirements. Maybe you missed that part. And I don’t consider keeping your nose clean much of a threshold for legal carry.

          • Mitch Berg

            Nope, Bob. On 2nd Amendment issues or my home state of ND, I never miss anything

            Your remarks imply you believe that lowering requirements to carry is *dangerous*.

            I’ve shown a long list of examples of places that have the same requirement that’s being proposed ND (and, shortly here, Minnesota) where the sky has *not* fallen, including Minnesota itself, not all that long ago.

            The examples show that your assumptions are wrong.

    • Rob

      Just proves my point that life is cheap. And I think the slogan, “The 2nd Amendment is your permit to carry” was coined by the same clowns who came up with “Make America Great Again.”

  • Rob

    Bob C, this story needs to be slotted in a new News Cut category called Life is Cheap.

  • Like I need another reason to stay out of North Dakota.

  • Jeff

    I agree with the featured comment. Although I haven’t been through As a kid my dad made me take courses for firearms, snowmobile, watercraft, and vehicles. Some were legally required and others were his own requirement but all were extremely valuable and worth the time. I don’t know how less training is ever a good idea when the safety of yourself and others is potentially at risk.

    • Jeff

      Whoops, meant to say “Although I haven’t been through the Permit to Carry course,”

  • Jay Sieling

    I used to own a sporting goods store, had a federal firearms license, sold guns. This was before Minnesota became a “shall issue” state. The process for buying long guns was simple: fill out the form, call the NICS number to receive authorization – pass or delay, complete the sale and customer walks out with a long gun. The process for handguns was a bit more detailed. The customer first needed a Permit to Acquire which was issued by local law enforcement – at their discretion. Local sheriff or PD chief made the decision to issue permit or not.

    I remember one customer came in, very nervous woman, wanting to look at handguns. As part of the sale we ask what they may be using it for (protection, target practice, hunting, etc) She claimed she wanted one to dispatch any animal she might hit with her car. She told a story of hitting a raccoon once and backing over it to see if it was dead. She was worried that wouldn’t work if she hit a deer. She wanted a gun to carry in her purse or car that could dispatch a wounded deer if she hit it on the road. Not unreasonable, but given her demeanor, and the general interaction, I was not comfortable selling her any gun. (She indicated she would walk right up and shoot straight down into the pavement!)

    This was a moment I was happy not to get the sale. I let her know she would need to apply for the permit to acquire from the local sheriff or police chief. I was pretty sure if they heard the same story and met her they’d hold off on such a permit. As a “shall issue” state, the training, even though very superficial, makes a difference. “No permit required” puts a judgement burden on the retailer. In the situation I described, if she had the necessary permit, I would have felt better about the interaction, knowing there had at least been some instruction.

    • Erik Petersen

      Law enforcements’ ability to approve purchase permits in this state has never been ‘discretionary’ (you’re conflating notions of ‘may issue’ and ‘shall issue’ that existed under prior carry law). Law enforcement has always had to approve the purchase permit when the background check comes back clean. One has never had to furnish local law enforcement with a reason to acquire a gun when applying for the purchase permit.

  • Tyler

    “Well-regulated” /s

    • Mitch Berg

      Meant “can hit what they aim at”

  • Mitch Berg

    Remember how violent Minnesota was before 1974? Not very violent, right? Pretty darn tranquil, in fact?

    We’ll come back to that.

    Not sure how many of you have been following the situations in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho (residents, anyway), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (residents only again), but all of them have one form of permitless carry or another. None of them are specially riven with violence of any kind, guns or no. Not, certainly, compared with Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, Camden, Stockton, or for that matter North Minneapolis. The primary predictor of violence ()including gun valence) seems to be “generations of Democrat rule”, not access to guns by the law-abiding citizen.

    By the way – you do realize every criminal that wants to is already carrying without a permit, right? Even when it’s illegal? Because they’re criminals?

    Back to our first paragraph. Minnesota did not require a permit to carry a firearm before 1974. Remember all the violence that the state had back then?

    No? That’s right.

    • Rob

      Good points. That’s why I’m in favor of giving every adult in the Red states and the rural areas of Blue states a fully automatic assault rifle, no permit required. I’m confident such a distribution would have no impact on the safety stats.

      • Gary F

        So, first you would need to make “fully automatic” assault rifles(whatever that means) legal.

      • Mitch Berg

        Your confidence is quaint – and not supported by stats.

        But then nothing about the gun grab movement ever actually is.

      • Mitch Berg

        But hey, Bob – let’s delve back into reality

        Minnesota didn’t require a permit to carry until 1974.

        What problems did that cause? Please cite your sources.

    • kennedy

      Some facts: Violent crime rate in Minnesota nearly doubled from 1974-1994. Since 1994, the violent crime rate has been steadily decreasing.

      Coincidentally, in 1994 the US federal government passed the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act. This included a 10 year ban on assault weapons (which has since expired). In 2005, the year this ban expired, violent crime rate in Minnesota jumped 15%.

      Could be a coincidence I suppose.

      (edited: stats are for Minnesota, not Minneapolis)

  • jon

    Gave it a day for the same tired gun arguments to play out, then I came back and read them… I might be a news cut comments section masochist.

    That said, I like the flip from “Hurray no more education for a permit to carry” from the same crowd that was all “we need to teach gun safety to kids in school because it’s so important.”

    I would think it takes an amazing amount of mental gymnastics to make that kind of flip.

    I guess I’m glad gun safety has it’s advocates, just sad that they are totally fair weather fans.