Why is Our Minnesota Permit to Carry Class only $50?

I think of all the questions we get about Maple Grove Firearms, this is the most common question.  The short answer as to why we charge so little is because we’re in it for the cause of the 2nd Amendment.  We’re not doing this to make a lot of money.

None of us who teach or work in this business depend on the income.  We all do it because we believe in a person’s right to self-defense wherever they find themselves legally.  This means carrying in public.

So, we keep the cost low so that cost isn’t a reason for a person to not get their permit.

We also find that more people attend our class and the energy created by having 20-40 people in the room is positive and constructive.  And, with that number of people, we can justify the cost of privately renting the range so that we can call the group together and teach on the range without the possibility of someone shooting while we’re talking/teaching.

We (nearly) always get high/rave reviews on our class because we take the time to really teach about the law and firearms safety.  Then we ask that each student shoots 50 rounds and show that you can safely handle a firearm.

Our Minnesota Permit to Carry class is the best value in the Twin Cities. Consider taking our class, whether your new to firearms or you’ve been carrying for 30 years.

What Secretary Clinton Believes About Guns and Why You Should NOT Vote for Her

Maple Grove Firearms is unashamed tohttp://reason.com/blog/2016/06/08/its-pretty-clear-clinton-does-not-think be pro-2nd Amendment. It is a right given to us by our founders and our Creator. Secretary Clinton doesn’t believe the way we do, so we want to outline what she believes from public comments and writings she has made and then ask you to NOT vote for her in the coming election.

On her campaign web site, Mrs. Clinton will do everything she can to repeal the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (here too). Signed by George W. Bush in 2005, the Act prevents firearm manufacturers from being held liable if someone uses their products to commit a crime. Mrs. Clinton, presumably, would let the trial lawyers have a red-meat feast of suing these manufacturers to the point where defense costs would drive up retain pricing, thus reducing the number of people who could afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Mrs. Clinton is simply wrong on this issue. If one can sue firearm manufacturers when their products are used to commit a crime, why not sue baseball bat manufacturers when a Louisville Slugger is used to kill someone, or sue hammer manufacturers when a hammer is used to kill someone or the automobile manufacturers when a car is used to commit a crime? She is inconsistent – calling out only the firearm manufacturers – for this type of exposure to liability.

Moreover, on her campaign web site, Mrs. Clinton will work to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was signed by her husband and ended under Bush 43’s administration. So all you folks who have AR-15’s and similar types of weapons, she wants to ban them, take them away and probably use that opportunity to ban other types of weapons and magazine sizes as well.

Thirdly, she doesn’t really believe the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional right that we have. Check out this article on her interview with George Stephanopoulos regarding her basic belief about the 2nd Amendment. She says “IF it is a constitutional right….” (emphasis added) (here and here too). “IF”? Seriously? She disagrees with the Heller decision. Fine. But her side lost at the Supreme Court. It is a personal right that is not tied to serving in the Militia the Court concluded. There is no “If”. But in her mind, it’s still “If”.


So, there are three examples of why you shouldn’t vote for Mrs. Clinton for President if you’re pro-2nd Amendment:

  1. Mrs. Clinton wants to expose the firearm manufactures to endless lawsuits that will drive up the costs of firearms and ammunition to the point where most will not be able to afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights
  2. She wants to reinstate the ban on “assault” firearms. But rest assured that she’ll not stop with the AR-15 – she’ll want to include many other semi-auto firearms in her ban. I know I’m not wrong on this prediction.
  3. She doesn’t recognize or respect the Court’s Heller decision. She doesn’t think you and I have a personal right to carry a firearm for self-defense

Three very good reasons to not vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Bill English
Maple Grove Firearms

Do You Have a Duty to Inform?

In Minnesota, when you are stopped by state or local police, do you have a duty to inform them that you’re legally carrying a firearm before being asked by a peace officer?

The short answer is “no”. Minnesota law states: “The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer…” (624.714, Subd 1b). So in Minnesota, only after you are asked by a peace officer must you show him/her your permit to carry license.

If you don’t have your permit with you, the peace officer can charge you with a petty misdemeanor. The fine for the first offense is not more than $25 and your firearm is not subject to forfeiture. However, if you can produce your license later in court or in the office of the arresting officer, Minnesota law states that the citation must be dismissed.

Since the license does not contain your picture, if the officer chooses to do so, s/he can lawfully require you to write a sample signature in the officer’s presence to verify your identity. Presumably, your sample signature would be compared to the one on the license you produced to ensure you are who you claim to be.

In all encounters with peace officers, when you’re carrying, it is a good (real good) idea to make sure that you treat them with respect and that you follow all orders, even if you feel they are in violation of law or your constitutional rights. The time to argue your points is not with the officer – it is in court. Treat the officers with respect and chances are good that they’ll do the same in return.

Bill English
Founder, Maple Grove Firearms

Shoot Yourself in the Foot

ND-shot-in-footThis guy shot himself in the foot – literally because he took the safety off his pistol as he was drawing it from the holster and then put his finger on the trigger too quickly.

Learning to draw and fire is an essential skill to carrying a firearm.  Knowing how to draw safely is something that should be practiced on a regular basis.

One of the problems in learning this skill is that most ranges won’t allow the drawing and firing of a firearm in a single action.  So you may need to work hard to find a range that can accommodate this skill development.  But it will be the worth the effort.

Gun Control is Crouching at Your Door

Recently, 124 House Democrats have co-sponsored HR 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. You should stop right now and read the bill before you read further in this post.

The bill would, in effect, prohibit the manufacturing, distribution and possession of most (what are commonly known as) assault rifles, while exempting those rifles that are already in existence. I guess their thinking is that over a period of decades, the assault rifle would die off and not be available for mass shootings.

It also bans the gifting of assault rifles between private parties and all “grandfathered” weapons would be subject to the same limitations and exclusions as new weapons.

If this thing were to ever pass, say goodbye to your AR-15 and other similar types of firearms.

Mind you, this will do *nothing* to stop mass shootings. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2009, there are a total of 310 million firearms in the United States broken out as follows: 114M handguns, 110M rifles and 86M shotguns. Any one of these types of guns can be used to kill numerous people at the same time. Regulating assault rifles in order to lower mass shootings is a bit like regulating minivans in order to lower automobile deaths. It will have little effect – except to create a black market for AR-style firearms and turn those who own them into criminals.

In addition, the same report showed that firearms-related murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates per 100,000 citizens dropped from 6.6% in 1993 to 3.2% in 2011. This report did not find a correlation between the increase in the number of firearms and an increase in firearm-related murders and manslaughters. This report also found that the use of weapons in non-lethal crimes decreased from 2.4 persons in 2000 to 1.4 persons in 2009.

The mere existence of firearms does not pose a threat to society or individuals within that society, much like the mere existence of fattening foods does pose a threat to us. It’s what we do with the firearm that matters. You can leave a fully loaded shotgun on your front porch and I’ll promise you that everyone will be safe and no one will be harmed until someone picks it up and uses it to shoot another person.

If gun control people really want to solve this problem by removing guns from our society, then they should go big or go home: either abolish the 2nd Amendment or go home.

The ATF Ban on 223 Ammunition: Talking Points

The ATF has opened a public-comment period until March 16. Email APAComments@atf.gov to give your opinion. Write your congressmen and senators. Stand up now or your freedom will be diminished by this absurd proposed rule. When you write them, here are some talking points you might consider putting down in your own words:

  • The definition for what constitutes “armor piercing” reads: “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. The M855 ball ammunition the ATF wants to ban as “armor piercing” doesn’t have a core made of the metals listed in what legally makes a bullet “armor piercing.” The M855 actually has a lead core with a steel tip.
  • The 223 is made for sporting purposes and thus is exempt from the Gun Control Act of 1968.
  • In 1986, your organization – the ATF – specifically exempted the .223 round that you are now proposing to ban. No change in the architecture of the cartridge has occurred, so what has changed that is causing you to propose this rule?
  • The ban against armor-piercing ammunition was designed to save the lives of police and law enforcement. So this begs the question: Is .223 M855 ball ammunition currently a problem for law enforcement? Or, more precisely, is M855 ball ammunition when shot from handguns killing law-enforcement officers? According to the FBI’s “uniform crime reports” about 2.5 percent of all murders are committed with rifles of any caliber. The FBI does not break out its statistics by caliber. One will be hard pressed to find a single murder of a police officer in a shooting where someone used a handgun chambered in .223—much less one using M855 ball ammunition.
  • This is a solution in search of a problem

If you have other talking points that folks could consider when they write, please post them here. Thank you.

For more information, read these articles:








Obama and ATF Move to Ban .223 Rifle Ammunition

It’s been all over the news yesterday, hyped by Rush Limbaugh and is a growing story today. That’s right – why ban guns when it is so much easier to ban ammunition? It’s difficult to argue with the logic. So the President is abusing his Executive Authority by moving to ban .223 ammunition that is used in the AR-15 rifle.

Let’s get to the facts:

First, the way they are going about this is to claim the M855 ball ammunition, a .223 (or 5.56 mm) rifle bullet that has been used by American citizens for decades, is an “armor piercing” round. Armor piercing ammunition was been banned to the general public in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) Federal law was passed by Congress. Frank Miniter at Forbes.com elaborates:

“The definition for what constitutes “armor piercing” reads: “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.

Now, to be as nitpicky as the law, the M855 ball ammunition the ATF wants to ban as “armor piercing” doesn’t have a core made of the metals listed in what legally makes a bullet “armor piercing.” The M855 actually has a lead core with a steel tip. Also, the M855 is traditionally a rifle cartridge and the ban only covers handgun ammunition. The DOJ argues this doesn’t stop them because the law stipulates they can ban a bullet that “may be used in a handgun.” And, after all, any cartridge may be used in a handgun.

Still, the definition has another condition. According to law, when ammo is made for “sporting purposes” (hunting, recreation shooting and so on) it is exempt from this ban. According to the DOJ the “GCA exempts ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is ‘primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.'” So, according to the DOJ, they simply get to decide on this condition.

The “sporting purposes” caveat is an important exemption, as every bullet designed to ethically kill a deer or other big-game animal (whether from a pistol, rifle or shotgun) will also shoot through a bulletproof vest. If all bullets that could potentially shoot through a cop’s bulletproof vest were banned, then hunting—at least ethical hunting with firearms—would cease. Also, shooting competitions and more would effectively be terminated. (For a behind-the-scenes expose of where gun rights and gun design is headed see my book The Future of the Gun.)

Now, the ATF isn’t saying they want to do all that, but this regulatory move would certainly take us in that direction. Also, you can’t blame people for questioning the politics behind this move when the attorney general behind this proposed ban has said his failure to further restrict Second Amendment rights is his greatest failure.”

American hunters, sportsmen and defenders of freedom won’t stand for this. The .223 will be produced, even if banned. It will create a black market that many in law enforcement won’t bother to enforce. Obama hates the 2nd Amendment and the rights of gun owners. He hates the population being able to defend itself. If you’re a person who clings to your Bible and your guns, you’re the picture of what he thinks is wrong with this country.

Rise up and let your voice be heard. Be part of the millions who band together to defeat him. The ATF has opened a public-comment period until March 16. Email APAComments@atf.gov to give your opinion. Write your congressmen and senators. Stand up now or your freedom will be diminished by this absurd proposed rule.

Bill English

Validity of Utah Conceal Carry Permit when you Change States of Residence

Recently, a customer asked us if their non-resident Utah Conceal Carry permit would still be legal if they moved out of Minnesota and took up residence in another state. Since the application process in Utah requires that you have a valid permit in your home state, our customer was wondering if you changed your residence to a different state other than the one in which you applied for your Utah permit, would that invalidate your Utah Conceal Carry Permit?

The answer is that as long as you have a valid Permit in your home state – in this case, the Minnesota Permit to Carry license – at the time of your application for Utah’s Conceal Carry license, then Utah license is valid until its’ renewal date. At that point, you’ll need to have a valid permit to carry or conceal carry license in your home state to renew your Utah Conceal Carry permit.

We recommend that if you move, you swiftly get your new home state’s permit as well. It’s just better if the police stop you and you can produce a valid permit from your home state. Just like you get a new driver’s license, so you should look to get a new permit to carry or conceal carry license in your new home state as well.

Silencers in Minnesota

Are silencers legal in Minnesota? The short answer is “no”. The law clearly states:

Subd. 1a. Felony crimes; silencers prohibited; reckless discharge. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 1h, whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):

(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm;

(2) intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another; or

(3) recklessly discharges a firearm within a municipality.

Sorry – any device designed to silence or muffle the sound of a discharge of a firearm is committing felony.

Now – can you buy them? Technically, yes, but one purchased it will be in your possession and that is also a felony. So, in short, silencers are illegal in the State of Minnesota.

Law enforcement organizations, military units and FFLs who sell to them may sell and/or possess silencers. But they are not available in Minnesota to the general public. 39 states currently allow the public to have silencers. Minnesota is in the minority of states that don’t allow it. And having a Minnesota Permit to Carry license doesn’t matter on this issue. The Permit to Carry license don’t give you license to own a suppressor.

Bill English
NRA Instructor
Maple Grove Firearms

%d bloggers like this: