The DOJ just sued Minnesota over its purchase permit process — not an investigation, actual litigation — and the core argument is that a 60-day wait after a clean background check is unconstitutional. This is worth paying attention to regardless of what state you're in.

"The Supreme Court held that the home is where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. When a person needs to defend their home, they need to defend it now, not thirty to sixty days from now."

That line from Dhillon isn't just rhetoric — it's the legal hook. The Carol Bowne case they cite in the filing makes it concrete: a woman with an active restraining order against her killer, waiting 42 days into a 30-day permit window. A permit requirement didn't protect her. It just made sure she was unarmed when it mattered.

"Minnesota exempts carry-permit holders from the purchase permit requirement, but only about 8.2% of the state's adults hold one — leaving roughly 4.2 million residents subject to the wait."

So the people who took the time to get a carry permit can skip the line — but everyone else is stuck waiting two months to exercise a constitutional right after already passing a NICS check. If you think Idaho's system has friction, Minnesota makes us look wide open.

The Eighth Circuit is the real unknown here. Not Ninth Circuit hostile, not Fifth Circuit friendly — just murky. A win here would matter more than a Fifth Circuit ruling because it wouldn't be written off as a regional outlier.

If you've ever bought a gun in a state with a purchase permit requirement, how much did the wait actually affect your decision — or your sense of what that right actually means in practice?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett