Alliance of Peacemakers
To listen to this, click here.
This needs a little background.
Steve Borchardt, the Olmstead County Sheriff, was the chairman of the legislative committee of the Minnesota Sheriff's Association, and in that capacity, did his damndest to a: try to modify the Minnesota Personal Protection Act into irrelevance, and b: prevent it from being passed. As it worked out, all of the issues he raised on behalf of the MSA were addressed in the bill . . . and, of course, the MSA, instead of supporting the bill in exchange for some very serious concessions, still opposed it, calling their credibility into question. Borchardt, over three years, repeatedly testified against the bill.
It passed. It's the law.
Borchardt gave the following speech to SE MN "Alliance of Peacemakers" rally in opposition to the Minnesota Citzens
Personal Protection act, in Rochester, Minnesota, on May 27, 2003, the day before the law took effect. What's interesting here is how much Borchardt has to concede — even in front of a very anti-reform audience — in order to try to reestablish some credibility.
His speech is reprinted here, in full, with comments interspersed.
You'll note that Borchardt doesn't quite come out and say that he disagrees with them about anything. Onward...Thank you, Chuck, greetings to all of you.
I know how you all feel about handguns, and so I need to
say before I start that I'm not contributing to the rally
in quite the way ... I'm not hear to be a cheerleader for
your view of the cause. Not because I necessarily disagree
with you totally - part of me agrees with you.
It's simply a matter of ... I am charged now with administering this
law fairly and according to the words of the law, not
according to my personal feelings.And we are going to have to go before the legislature next
year, we know we are going to have to, and ask for changes
in how this is carried out procedurally. And if we
sacrifice our credibility between now and then by being
obstinate because we don't like some aspects of the law,
then we are not going to be able to get those changes made
we need to get done.
Trans.: "We already tried blocking, and game-playing — and it didn't work. We have to try something else.
What I'd like to discuss a little bit today - and I realize
you all don't want to sit here for forty-five minutes and I
could go on for a long time - I want to talk a little bit
about how we got here, the current law versus the new law
that will take effect tomorrow, the training requirements,
the venue restrictions, and then any questions you folks
might have about how we think we're going to do this, so we
can promote public safety.First of all: history. How did we get here. That's
precisely why I made the opening comments I just made, in
case I set some of you off. I didn't really mean to, I just
wanted to set a clear expectation, because we got here
because too many chiefs and sheriffs across the state
allowed too many of their personal opinions about guns to
enter into their deliberations on how to administer the
existing law.
Yup. The chiefs and sheriffs abused their authority; that's why it was taken away from them. Who is going to believe them saying, "If you give it back, we'll reform?"
The existing law is known as a "prove a need" law. That is
in order to obtain a permit to carry a handgun, you had to
not only be fit, mentally, physically, and have some
training, but you needed to be able to prove why you needed
one. So it's known as a "prove a need" law.
Remember, the "existing law" Borchardt is talking about is the old law.
The problem is it was wide open relative to discretion.
And the local chief and sheriff - or sheriff, depending
upon whether lived in a municipality or on the county,
could decide, with wide open discretion, whether your need
was good enough. That was one part of it.Then they could decide, with wide open discretion, whether
or not you are appropriate to carry a gun, or fit to carry
a gun. The problem with that was that we had some sheriffs
in some areas of the state that gave away permits like they
were a campaign contribution award. Or reward.And we had some sheriffs and chiefs in other parts of the
state that wouldn't give one to anybody no matter their
need. Even if they had a professional need as a private
security company need or something of the sort. Or as one
chief I heard articulated, "I don't care if somebody's
chasing you down the street with a gun pointed at you,
that's not a good enough reason for me because I don't
believe more guns are going to help our society."
Borchardt is hinting, pretty clearly, that the arrogance of the chiefs led them to an excess of candor.
So we had this extremely wide difference in application.
And that was from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, that was
from city to county within which that city was situated.
That was from one administration of a police department to
the next administration of a police department. And there
was no consequence. There was no sanction. The Attorney
General didn't come down on you, the legislature didn't
come down on you, you didn't get sued. It was wide open.And so at one point, as a matter of fact a number of years
ago a chief from the Twin Cities area actually testified in
front of a House committee that under no circumstances
would he ever issue a permit to anybody and nobody need
apply. And that was just as much an abuse of the current
law as to give it to everybody without examining what their
need was.So what happened?
Well, those that thought they had a legitimate need, those
who sought to carry a gun, and thought they were
tax-paying, law-abiding, competent, trained citizens, came
to us and said, "sheriffs and chiefs we don't think you're
administering this law very well, would you be open to some
modification so there's some sanction on yourself."And we said "No."
We said, "you don't have any political clout. Go pound
sand. We don't have to talk to you."As an organization, about eight years ago, we said that to
them, and guess what they did? They went and got some
political clout. The American way. And it took them three
and one half legislative cycles. Seven years. But they
did their homework, and they did what we do in our country.
They lobbied and they contributed, and they campaigned for,
and they got elected, over the period of seven years, a
legislature that was partial to their view of this issue.
Yup.
And that's where we found ourselves a couple of years ago
when House File 1360 passed the House with overwhelming
majority, and caught us all napping. And suddenly a bunch
of us got involved and we were able to get it stopped in
the Senate by two votes.
Yup — that was, of course, the game plan: block, block, block.
And it came back again last year,
and we were able to again stop it by two votes.
Actually, one vote — but nevermind.
But then we had an election again last fall. And they went
to the polls and they worked hard. And when we came to
session this year it was very evident that this thing was
going to pass. In fact, they were going to able to pass
just about anything they wanted to, and as a matter of fact
the first version we were dealing with in December and
January I labelled probably the least restrictive
shall-issue law in the State of Minnesota - for not only
did they take us away from "prove a need", and over to this
idea that you can have one just because you're a
law-abiding citizen, they even took away all of my local
discretion to determine who was fit to have a permit. And
they went way over to this side, and as I told the House
Committee, the Civil Law Finance Committee, I saw it, after
studying all of the different shall-issue, if you will,
laws in the nation, that this one was one of the least
restrictive, one of the most hard-line shall-issue.
That's the party line; in fact, even the first version of the bill allowed for discretion by the sheriffs — but they had to, as in the law that passed, have evidence. There are many states where there simply is no discretion allowed at all by the issuing authority.
So we worked hard over the last few months, and we appealed
to a number of legislators, senators and representatives,
most of whom told us that they were inclined to vote for
something. They didn't want to vote for anything that
extreme, but if that's the only thing that came out the
other end of the session, they would vote for it because
they weren't going home without voting for it.
Because, either they support the idea of law-abiding citizens making such decisions for themselves, or because they know that to vote against the bill is to incur the anger, and lose the votes, of many voters.
So in that context, we tried to do what negotiating we
could. To at least salvage some local discretion as to who
was fit enough. And I won't go into all the legalese, as
to the language we crafted, but suffice it to say that we
were able to pull back some moderation, as to why or who is
fit to carry a gun and who isn't. But we lost all
discretion as to the "prove a need" issue.
Yup. That was what they had abused so badly, and that's what they lost entirely.
They never should have had it. Why should a law-abiding citizen have to prove a need to the satisfaction of a bureaucrat before exercising a fundamental, individual right?
That essentially covers my number two item, too. The
current law versus the old law. The big difference is that
now if you're a law-abiding citizen, and by that you
haven't had any felonies, you haven't had any violent
misdemeanors, you haven't had a record of contact with the
police that would suggest there is a substantial likelihood
that you'd be a danger to yourself or others, and you have,
you're twenty-one years old and you have acquired the
training that's specified by law, by the new law, then you
can have a permit to carry.This training requirements are that you have the training
within one year, that it cover... There's three components
that the curiculumn has to cover. It has to cover the
fundamentals of pistol use, a shooting qualification course
so you can actually have to go point it and shoot it and
show everybody you know which end of the thing to stand
behind, and the legal aspects of the use of deadly force.
Which is quite extensive, that's kind of a short way of
saying all the issues that go into the business of deciding
to use deadly force to protect yourself - whether or not
it's necessary or appropriate.The other big issue you've heard a lot about is venue
restrictions.
Note this next admission:
Oh, by the way, on training I'd also say
there about six different certifying entities that certify
the instructors, for who's qualified to instruct the
training. Actually, I have to tell you I feel pretty good
about the training piece. I think it's probably the
strongest part of the law. It improves upon what the old
law was significantly. What we're going in that regard is
the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in cooperation with
the Minnesota Sheriffs Association is establishing a list
of training courses and instructors that are certified and
that we have validated as being a course that meets the
statute and an instructor that meets the certification. So
that information is available across the state to all
sheriffs. That is probably the best news of the statute as
it is.
Even Borchardt doesn't have a problem with the training requirements.
Venue restrictions - that's one of the hot buttons. We
tried to appeal to our legislators that it was going to be
difficult for them to explain to their minister why there
had to be sign, on every door of the church, that was about
eighteen inches by twenty-four inches, is lime green, with
inch-and-a-half black type, and why they had to provide a
lock box to secure the guns, and why they had to provide
comprehensive indemnification for everybody that therefore
gave up their gun, that if they were the victim of gun
violence they'd be indemnified by the building owners that
made them give up their guns.We got a fair amount of listening on that - not as much as
I would have liked to see. They dropped the lock boxes,
and they dropped the comprehensive indemnification, and
they did away with the green sign and it doesn't have to be
as big. And you can get by with something that big. But
there does have to be a sign on every entrance.Now this business that you're reading about that everybody
has to be confronted, or told personally, that's being
interpreted a couple of different ways. I know that the
authors didn't interpret that, didn't intend for that to
mean that a greeter had to stand by the door, and everybody
that came through that door had to be told "no guns", "no
guns", "no guns", "no guns". What they meant simply was
that before someone could be mailed a ticket, for this
petty misdemeanor, of possessing a gun beyond the sign,
that they needed to be confronted. So you couldn't just
get their name and send them a ticket like we set a ticket
on your car for a petty misdemeanor parking ticket. Since
it was a petty misdemeanor, they were afraid that that kind
of thing could take place, and they wanted at least the gun
owner, the gun toter, if you will, to have the benefit of
having been told, or reminded, that they had just walked
past this sign that required that they let go of their gun,
and then in that event that the gun owner did refuse to
leave, or refused to go put their gun someplace else, they
could be charged.This is a piece I think is going to have to be litigated.
Certainly if whatever court that litigates it goes back to
the intent of the authors they will be more benevolent in
their ruling, but it can be interpreted the way the
opponents interpreted it during debates in the final hours
in the legislature - that yah, the way it's written, the
letter of the law suggests that in order for that sign to
be valid everybody has to be told. I don't know how that's
going to come out. It's one of the issues that has yet to
be solved.Relative to the other venue restriction, I mentioned
churches, everybody's swallowing hard right now because
they're afraid they can't keep them out of city office
buildings, places where city councils meet, and just don't
think it's a good idea for them to be there, and right now
they can't.
Yup. And why should they?
We're going to get by in Rochester and Olmstead County
because we're all in the same building with the same big
footprint and the judges have taken it upon themselves to
date to interpret their authority under the separation of
powers as having the authority to maintain the security of
their facility.
As usual, the sheriffs are trying to evade the law — I doubt that this "the judges have taken it upon themselves" bit will pass anybody's laugh test.
And the courthouse complex is deemed to be
the appropriate governing language and they are
interpreting the courthouse complex to mean the contiguous
footprint of the entire building which includes City Hall
because there is no security, physical security barrier
between City Hall and the court floors upstairs and indeed
the court does in fact use the conference rooms on the main
floor for jury orientation and various functions like
that. So they are going to take an aggressive
interpretation of that. And they are, I also understand,
by the Pioneer Press, are going to do the same thing there.So venue restrictions, the other issue was private
businesses, where are they going to come down on this
thing. While we were in negotiations in February and March
we cops pretty much had to give up that fight because the
Chamber of Commerce was doing that deal. And they appeared
before the House Ways and Means Committee in early April
and pretty much punted. They had talked to their
counterparts in the thirty-three states where they already
had shall-issue laws and they'd come back and found out
it's going to be that big a deal and they didn't want to
alienated those members of their clientele that would carry
a gun, and so they were happy with the law the way you find
it in the final form.
I think he meant to say "it's NOT going to be that big a deal." And he's right.
While as a group of cops, if the business community shows
up in front of the legislature and says they're happy,
well, they pretty well neutered us on that deal.
Trans. "The business community didn't go along with the hysteria that the chiefs and sheriffs were trying to promote."
The school lobby got in there and fought pretty hard, and
they never came to the legislature and said they were
happy, but the authors did make enough changes that the
legislators came to the conclusion that the schools should
be happy. So that's kinda where the whole thing ended up.
Schools, technically, there's no question about it, this
law is stronger than the existing law, because the existing
law is silent. And since its silent on it, we can take all
kinds of implies authority - to post a sign on our
building, or just to make a policy and tell people. But
once the law says that it's valid in all public areas in
the state then it takes an express direct order somewhere
in the statute and that's what they do for schools, child
care centers, and in the amending process in the final
negotiation, they even went so far as any venue that a
school takes over for their exclusive use. For instance if
they're playing a hockey game at Grand Marina. Grand
Marina for the purposes of that hockey game becomes
gun-free. So...
Yup — it's one of the flaws of the new law that it turns schools into a "no self-defense" zone. How well did that work at, say, Columbine?
Conceal versus open carry - the last item I wanted to
address briefly. It does not say that you have to conceal
it.
Yup — no change from the previous law.
Again, that's something I tried to point out to people
as we were negotiating. Hoping that it would catch some
sense of alarm. But I wasn't very successful, everybody
continues to term it the conceal and carry law. It never
has been, but then the current law is not anything has to
be concealed.We have, as was said, about a hundred and, I don't know
exact count, between a hundred and twenty and a hundred and
fifty permits out in Olmstead County right now - we've
never had an instance of a complaint coming to the office
that a permitted gun holder is displaying their gun in
means that was offensive or threatening to anybody.In fact, the only people I've ever had a complaint about
that is my own detectives when they come over to the
Galleria and eat, and I've ordered them to put jackets over
their guns so that nobody gets upset.But it'll be interesting to see how that goes. I
personally would be suspicious if someone walking down main
street with a six gun tied where you all could see it.
Just looks a little bit too much like bragging. I know it
is in direct conflict with what the people that teach this
- that are teaching it in our county - are going to
teach. They're going to teach concealment, they're going to
teach how to conceal it, and keep it concealed.
Yup; that we do.
I can tell you what the authors were afraid of is that if
the language was real tight about concealment, then some
anti-gun chiefs or sheriffs would be out there tagging
people because their sportcoat flew open, or because their
sweater rolled up and two inches of the bottom of it was
revealed. And so they were looking for a way to avoid
that, and we found ourselves with the current situation.
Absolutely. If the chiefs and sheriffs hadn't been playing games, it wouldn't have been necessary to write the law so as to prevent some of their obvious attempts to circumvent it.
Other than that, I want to keep this reasonably brief, and
I wanted to hit all the high points, and let you know what
we're trying to do, and what the finer points of the law
are. Certainly it all starts tomorrow. As Chuck said, we
can expect, we think, based on the experience of the other
thirty-four shall-issue states, thirty-three up until March
when Colorado went over. We think we can expect about two
percent of the general population to get a permit over the
course of the five year term of the permit. Which for us
would be twenty-six hundred of them. Divide that by five
that's five hundred and change per year. We think that's
going to be front-end loaded. We're going to get them
upfront, all in the first one, two, or three years, so
we're expecting quite a workload.And it's only the sheriffs, not the chiefs, that's
something we couldn't get negotiated out of it, the authors
at this point just absolutely didn't trust police chiefs
and they wanted it in the hands of the local elected
sheriff.
Fewer lawsuits necessary — after a couple of the sheriffs are slapped down for disobeying the law — and I expect to have more to say on that shortly — the rest will learn a very simple lesson: sheriffs have to obey the law, or it will cost them — in the pocketbook, and at the ballot box.
Do you have any questions?I guess I'm done.
You know, I want to, I want to say something really
heartfelt, right now, and I, you're my community and I
don't want to offend anyone here or Chuck, and I understand
why you held the prayer and moment of silence that you held
earlier, I understand the flowers, and I have no objection
with any of it, but to do it to the exclusion of mentioning
my deputy who risked his life, and took a round, and didn't
draw his gun until he'd fired at, and hit, three times...
Gosh, guys, you gotta give the other side its due. At
least when you are saying good things for the deceased who
brought this on himself with his own poor choices
throughout his life, at least recognize the sacrifice of
the person who stopped him.I would appreciate that.
Thank you.