First time carrying outside of Nebraska (Iowa and Minnesota)

[LTCetme]

I've got the Nebraska CCW permit and a Utah Non-resident permit (for Minnesota).

I feel comfortable with the laws here but I was wondering if those of you who travel had any tips or advice for me.

Are their any major differences to the rules in IA and MN that I should be aware of? A read of handgunlaw.us would suggest that MN and IA are actually less strict that Nebraska. It looks like I am not required to tell an officer in either state unless I am specifically asked that I have a gun on me. I see no magazine restrictions either.

Any gotchas that you know of to point out?

[00BUCK]

www.handgunlaw.us will tell you everything you need to know.

[bullit]

+1  on 00 Buck's recommendation.  Outside of that I do think it behooves you to ALWAYS inform LEO.  It can't hurt and in my experience (yes, I am a lead foot) has more often led to a friendly warning vice citation. 

[rudy]

Handgunlaw.us is a good place to check out.  As for MN, the "No guns allowed on the premises" signs do not carry the force of law.  You may carry past the signs legally.  To get into any trouble, you must refuse to leave after being asked to do so by the property owner/tenant. 

I don't have any experience with IA--I've only driven through it.

+1  on 00 Buck's recommendation.  Outside of that I do think it behooves you to ALWAYS inform LEO.  It can't hurt and in my experience (yes, I am a lead foot) has more often led to a friendly warning vice citation.

I disagree.  If in a "not required to inform" state, I would only inform a LEO if they would actually see/find the firearm.  Example: asked to step out of a vehicle and cover garment might have ridden up or something.  When talking with a LEO, the safest place for my pistol is in its holster.  If you inform, the best case scenario is the officer just asks you to leave it in the holster.  Sometimes this is not the case and the officer disarms you and unloads your pistol.  Traffic stops can be high-stress environments, especially for LEO since they never know what they'll find in a car.  Introducing an unfamiliar firearm for the LEO to handle at a potentially stressful time doesn't seem like a great idea to me. 

If you inform when not required to (within reason), it's kind of like playing the lottery.  Sure, you might get off with a warning, but a multitude of other bad things could happen.

[Husker_Fan]

As soon as the LEO, in any state, runs your driver's license they will know you have a CHP. I would inform that I have a permit even if not carrying.

[rudy]

As soon as the LEO, in any state, runs your driver's license they will know you have a CHP.

I'm sorry, but this is false.  It may be true for certain states, but not all of them.  For example, if you're a MN resident, have a MN permit to carry, and a LEO runs your DL in MN, it does not immediately show anything about a permit to carry.  Permit to carry info in MN is in a separate database from the DL info.  If the LEO wants to know if you have a permit to carry, they must search a different database.

Also, your statement implies that states share carry permit info, as though a MN LEO running a NE DL would know that the NE DL holder is also a CHP holder.  I highly doubt this.  If I am wrong, please correct me and share your source.

[Husker_Fan]

I was only speaking for your Nebraska permit as I assumed you have a Nebraska DL. It is absolutely correct for a Nebraska issued permit and I would suspect is true for any other state that ties the permit record to the DMV record.

Yes, I have confirmed that the state of Nebraska shares this information with the database nearly every LEO in the country interacts with when they run your DL number. That database is even cross referenced to other forms of ID like your passport and is shared across borders as well. That's how Canadian customs knew I had a NE CHP when I crossed the border with my passport.

[SemperFiGuy]

It's a very good idea to Always Immediately Inform the LEO about (a) your CHP permit and (b) your handgun, if carrying.   Part (b) is a requirement for CHP holders in Nebraska.   And certain other states.

Yes, I completely understand the Righteous and Tender Sensitivities of Those Who Advise Otherwise, but they will not be standing between the CHP holder and the LEO when the LEO finds out about either (a) or (b).   Late at night.   On a dark and lonely road.

Now, anyone who takes the position that he is not required to notify and therefore will not do so is certainly welcome to that position.  And whatever consequences that may come with it.   Some instructive YouTube videos w/Freaked Out, Ballistic LEOs help illustrate the point here.

FWIW,

sfg

[abbafandr]

It's a very good idea to Always Immediately Inform the LEO about (a) your CHP permit and (b) your handgun, if carrying.   Part (b) is a requirement for CHP holders in Nebraska.   And certain other states.

Yes, I completely understand the Righteous and Tender Sensitivities of Those Who Advise Otherwise, but they will not be standing between the CHP holder and the LEO when the LEO finds out about either (a) or (b).   Late at night.   On a dark and lonely road.

Now, anyone who takes the position that he is not required to notify and therefore will not do so is certainly welcome to that position.  And whatever consequences that may come with it.   Some instructive YouTube videos w/Freaked Out, Ballistic LEOs help illustrate the point here.

FWIW,

sfg

Even with my Righteous and Tender Sensitivities, I would inform the LEO.  It might defuse a potential unsettling situation.  In my (too few) years of carrying, I haven't had to declare yet.   

[00BUCK]

I follow the law, and will only inform if I am carrying. That's my choice and I am not advocating it but I just can't fathom telling LEO's anything more than what is required. It has nothing to do with my righteous and tender sensitivities and EVERYTHING to do with my my rights and following the stupid agreement I was forced to make to exercise my rights, to a T.

[Gumby]

I follow the law, and will only inform if I am carrying. That's my choice and I am not advocating it but I just can't fathom telling LEO's anything more than what is required. It has nothing to do with my righteous and tender sensitivities and EVERYTHING to do with my my rights and following the stupid agreement I was forced to make to exercise my rights, to a T.

My sentiments exactly, but not informing the LEO can just ruin your day.  http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/... a Florida man and his family were abused for nearly 2 hours while on a Christmas trip that took them thru Maryland.  His "crime"?  Failure to notify LEO of his CCW.  His "excuse"?  He'd left his wee pistol in his home safe.  The LEO's reaction?  Verbal abuse and a 2-hour search of the family, their car and their possessions.

The article is also a good reminder to coach the family members about LEO encounters so that they don't add to the angst.

Exit question:  The wife's failure under duress to substantiate the driver's claim that he wasn't packing was cited in the article as the probable cause to search the driver, passengers, vehicle and contents... if he had been alone on this trip, would his failure to disclose by itself have been probable cause to search the vehicle and contents?

[Lorimor]

My sentiments exactly, but not informing the LEO can just ruin your day.  http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/... a Florida man and his family were abused for nearly 2 hours while on a Christmas trip that took them thru Maryland.  His "crime"?  Failure to notify LEO of his CCW.  His "excuse"?  He'd left his wee pistol in his home safe.  The LEO's reaction?  Verbal abuse and a 2-hour search of the family, their car and their possessions.

The article is also a good reminder to coach the family members about LEO encounters so that they don't add to the angst.

Exit question:  The wife's failure under duress to substantiate the driver's claim that he wasn't packing was cited in the article as the probable cause to search the driver, passengers, vehicle and contents... if he had been alone on this trip, would his failure to disclose by itself have been probable cause to search the vehicle and contents?

They tailed him for 10 minutes, then he was pulled over.  I think his crime was being from out of state.  The MA cop obviously had an attitude.  When the wife gave him the opening he was looking for, then he claimed "probable cause." 

Was he obliged to inform the MD officer he had a gun at home?  What was his "failure to disclose?"  What are we coming to?

As much as I despise our litigious society, I'd get a battery of lawyers lined up and sue the snot outta the state of Maryland in this case.