Top Ten Reasons Not to Repeal the Minnesota (MN) Carry Law
Relax, Rebecca; the Sky Isn't Falling
Rebecca Thoman, who runs (and, all in all, mostly is) "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota," has put up her "Top Ten" list of reasons to repeal the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act on her website, just as the legislative session is about to open.I guess she didn't want it analyzed in advance of the session.
So let's take a look at this whole thing. Rebecca's article is indented, and in italics; my responses aren't. I haven't added any text to her article, or taken any away.
I play fair. She doesn't.
There is, of course, no "Conceal & Carry." Minnesota law, quite reasonably, focuses on the carrying of weapons, not whether or not nervous people can see them. That's much more sensible than in many other states. If, say, a permit holder in Texas is walking down the street, minding his own business, and his jacket blows open, revealing the pistol on his hip, he's in trouble, and can lose his permit; in Minnesota, we just button our jackets.Here are the top ten reasons to Repeal Conceal & Carry:
Or reverse it: in some states, you're okay if you carry openly, but if the wind blows your coat around the required-to-be-exposed butt of your revolver, you're a criminal.
It's silly, either way.
Well, no. Actually, the sheriffs and police departments do the same background check already—and at no charge—for the Minnesota permit to purchase a pistol, and they do it in seven days, rather than the thirty days that they're allowed for carry permits.1. Criminals can receive permits. The law makes it expensive and time-consuming for sheriffs to deny permits, even to individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors whose crime occured more than three years prior.
That hasn't broken them, yet. And it won't. For carry permits, they receive $100 to conduct exactly the same background check. The question isn't whether not they'll lose money on the deal, but how much money they'll make.
The only way that a sheriff can lose money on the deal is to violate the law and deny a permit to somebody who is eligible; if he does that, the applicant can take the sheriff to court, and when the applicant wins, the sheriff has to pay the applicant's attorney's fees.
Understandably, the sheriffs are being very careful about giving permits only to qualified people—don't worry, Rebecca; they're doing their job.
Yup. But that isn't a change, and it isn't a reason to repeal the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act. Permit holders have always been able to carry in parks, ball fields, etc. The MCPPA doesn't change that.2. Communities can't keep handguns out of parks. Local governments are denied the authority to ban guns from public property such as parks, ball fields, libraries, playgrounds and community centers.
Yup, again.3. Business owners must post signs to ban guns. Commercial property owners must comply with onerous regulations is they wish to prohibit gun carrying on their property. Trespass with a firearm is a mere $25 fine. Landlords may not ban guns. Parking lots, whether publicly or privately owned, may not be restricted.
But so what?
Carrying a handgun for personal protection is, under law, a fundamental individual right. Those business owners who want to restrict their customers from exercising this fundamental, individual rights are expected to give them notice, and let the customers decide for themselves as to whether or not to take their guns, or their business, elsewhere.
Business owners, generally, don't worry about law-abiding customers, like permit holders. That's why such a small fraction of a percent of businesses have posted.
Landlords don't have the right to restrict tenants from protecting themselves. This is a feature, not a bug.
Sheesh. If I hadn't already read down to Rebecca's next "reason", I'd half expect it to be something like "permit holders are allowed to take any seat on the bus, rather than in the back, away from the white people."
But, no; it's just as silly, but not quite as offensive.
And forks in the community raise the risk of fork violence. Pay attention, Rebecca; let's concentrate on the problem of violence— and "shall-issue" gun laws, like the one in Minnesota, lower the rate of violent crime. That is, I think, a good thing.4. Guns in the community raise the risk of gun violence. Research shows that areas where guns are more prevalent, gun injury and death is more common. Visit the Topics in Depth page for more details.
Don't you? Don't you want the small but real lowering of violent crime that we're seeing now?
Maybe not.
But, please, Rebecca, don't try to change the subject. The MCPPA isn't about "guns in the community." The only way that passing the MCPPA changed things about "guns in the community" was to restrict who is allowed to own guns. Previously, convicted violent felons were able to legally own guns ten years from the end of their sentence; the MCPPA changed that to a lifetime bar on gun ownership.
You're missing the point, Rebecca. Up until the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act passed, there was no statutory restriction on permit holders drinking. (Sheesh. I go into this in some detail in the book, and I did send you a copy. You could at least have read it.)5. It is legal to carry a gun and drink. An adult's blood alcohol concentration must exceed .04 % before he or she has committed a misdemeanor. Guns are permitted in bars and liquor stores.
Now, there is. And it's very strict; permit holders are held to a much stricter standard than, say, you are, when you are driving.
Firstly, Rebecca, even you don't believe you. Back in 2000, one of the proposals to change Minnesota's antiquated, bureaucrats-know-best permit law was a statewide referendum. You fought that tooth and nail.6. Minnesotans do not want a liberalized handgun law. According to a 2002 survey by the University of Minnesota Center for Survey Research, 65% of Minnesotans believe that a person should have to show reason before being permitted to carry a gun as in the former "may issue" law. Link to Survey results at the bottom of the page.
And you fought reform in 2001, and 2002. Your favored candidate, Roger Moe, made his opposition to the MCPPA a cornerstone of his gubernatorial campaign, and he was soundly defeated. And not just him—those outstate senators who sat on the fence in 2002 were gone in 2003, and the MCPPA passed in both House and Senate, in a bipartisan vote.
Beyond that, remember the saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." As we all know, what results you get depend in large part on the questions you ask. What question did your survey ask?
It was:
"Most states require a special permit to allow individuals to carry a loaded handgun in public. In your opinion, should permits to carry handguns in public be issued to any adult who has no felony conviction and has passed a gun safety course, or only to people with a special need to carry a weapon, such as a security guard?"
Now, let's try it this way:
"In the vast majority of states, permits to carry a handgun in public are issued to any competent, law-abiding adult. Some of those states also require taking and passing a gun safety course. In your opinion, should there be a similar law in Minnesota, or should permits be given out only at the unfettered discretion of police chiefs and sheriffs to security guards and people with sufficiently strong political connections?"
Bet we get a different result, and you do, too—which is why you cherrypicked which survey you quoted.
Gotcha.
Sure, law enforcement opposed changing the law. That always happens. The folks involved in law enforcement are very conservative, and that's a good thing; that's their job. But even the most virulent opponents in law enforcement to the change in Minnesota law have realized that the changes aren't a problem for them. Give them some more time; they'll realize, as law enforcement officers have in 30-plus other states, that the changes work to their benefit. Having a list of "registered good guys" isn't a bug, from their point of view; it's a feature.7. Every major law enforcement organization opposed the current conceal and carry law. So did hundreds of churches, medical and public health organizations, civic, children's and education organizations, local governments and business groups. Only the gun lobby supported liberalizing handgun permit laws.
A physician—one who handles patients' confidential information every day, presumably, when she's not out demagoguing firearms issues—should understand the difference between "private," and "secret" information, as well as the whole notion that in a country that isn't a police state—and, thankfully, the US isn't a police state—private data isn't to be published promiscuously.8. Permit holders' identities are kept secret. The public is not allowed to know who has a permit, even when an individual commits a crime.
So should at least some of the bevy of lawyers that "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota" claims to have on their "advisory board."
You think that at least one of them would have at least read the law.
See the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act 13.87, subd. 2., and make a note: this isn't new law, but has been in effect for years and years:
Subd. 2. Firearms data. All data pertaining to the purchase or transfer of firearms and applications for permits to carry firearms which are collected by state agencies, political subdivisions or statewide systems pursuant to sections 624.712 to 624.719 are classified as private, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12.Permit data isn't "secret"; it's private.
Beyond that, Rebecca, you're simply not telling the truth. Of course the public is allowed to know when permit holders have committed crimes; and the annual reporting is mandated under the MCPPA—something that wasn't true under the old law.
When somebody is charged with a crime, that isn't private, or secret, or confidential—not in the United States of America. The court and the prosecutor are required—not permitted, but required—to make a public record of any action they take concerning the permit of a permit holder charged with a crime that would cause that permit holder to lose his permit if convicted.
If a permit holder is charged with such a crime, the prosecutor must report that to the court, and that's why prosecutors have access to the private database of permit holders.
If and when that happens, the court must make a decision about suspending or revoking the permit, and can even suspend a permit as a condition of release.
Again, chapter and verse from Section 624.714 of the Minnesota Statutes, as changed by the passage of the MCPPA:
Subd. 8. Permit to carry voided. (a) The permit to carry is void and must be revoked at the time that the holder becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, in which event the holder must return the permit card to the issuing sheriff within five business days after the holder knows or should know that the holder is a prohibited person. If a permit is revoked under this subdivision, the sheriff must give notice to the permit holder in writing in the same manner as a denial. Failure of the holder to return the permit within the five days is a gross misdemeanor unless the court finds that the circumstances or the physical or mental condition of the permit holder prevented the holder from complying with the return requirement.It's okay to disagree with the law, honest. It's very much not okay to blatantly and flagrantly misrepresent what it says.(b) When a permit holder is convicted of an offense that prohibits the permit holder from possessing a firearm, the court must revoke the permit and, if it is available, take possession of it and send it to the issuing sheriff.
(c) The sheriff of the county where the application was submitted, or of the county of the permit holder's current residence, may file a petition with the district court therein, for an order revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3). An order shall be issued only if the sheriff meets the burden of proof and criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees.
(d) A permit revocation must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff.
Subd. 8a. Prosecutor's duty. Whenever a person is charged with an offense that would, upon conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney must ascertain whether the person is a permit holder under this section. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor must notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a prohibiting offense. The prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of the case.
Subd. 12a. Suspension as condition of release. The district court may order suspension of the application process for a permit or suspend the permit of a permit holder as a condition of release pursuant to the same criteria as the surrender of firearms under section 629.715. A permit suspension must be promptly reported to the issuing sheriff. If the permit holder has an out-of-state permit recognized under subdivision 16, the court must promptly report the suspension to the commissioner for inclusion solely in the database under subdivision 15, paragraph (a).
Another gotcha, Rebecca.
For the rest, this is another feature, although Rebecca and company are presenting it as a bug. (Many folks who supported them have, in fact, gone out and gotten their own permits.) Does it make any sense to, say, let a stalker know that his victim may have the means of defending himself? Would it be a better thing if there was a published list of homes where a criminal would know he could burglarize (presumably when the occupants weren't home) to obtain a firearm?
Let's not be silly.
It's not a problem; no need to scare the nervous about it.
Sheesh. For something like three decades, local police departments have been running these exact same checks at no charge, for purchase permits. Over the same time, they've also been running the same checks for carry permits for $10. They haven't been losing any money by doing that; it's a normal function of what they do. Now, the sheriffs get $100 for running these very same checks. They didn't lose any money doing it for free; they're not going to lose any money doing it for $100 per check.9. Local taxpayers foot the bill. The $100 permit fee is inadequate to cover the costs of doing a thorough background check and administering the program.
You're half right. Violence is a terrible way to settle a personal dispute. It's also illegal—very illegal. The only reason to use lethal force— at least, the only reason that makes any sense—is when it's used by a reluctant participant to prevent death or great bodily harm. That hasn't changed under the new law, and it won't change.10.Violence is not an acceptable way to resolve disputes. The conceal and carry law amounts to an endorsement of using the threat of deadly force and sends the wrong message to our children.
If the message that the law sends was that lethal force can be used promiscuously, surely we'd have heard that at least one of the Chicken Little cries of "Every fender-bender will turn into a shootout!" would have come true. Forget the "every"—there hasn't been one, although there are fender-benders all the time.
But it hasn't happened.
If the message that the law sends was that lethal force can be used promiscuously, surely we'd have heard that at least one of the Chicken Little cries of "Every bar fight will be like the OK Corral!" would have come true.
But it hasn't happened; not one permit holder has so much as taken his firearm out in a bar fight.
Forget the "every"—there hasn't been one. I don't think that's an accident. I think that the message that both the law and the training I do sends out is that lethal force is only to be used in the gravest extreme, and that, even then, it's merely the least bad of a set of horrible alternatives, and that avoiding the necessity in the first place, whenever possible, is not merely required by law, but by common sense.
Which is why, by the way, that none of the defensive gun uses by permit holders—not one, in the now nine months since the MCPPA passed—has resulted in as much as a single shot being fired.
Not one.
Sounds to me like permit holders are listening to their own good sense—and to their instructors, as well—rather than to these hysterical pronoucements.
Which is just as well.
As to the children, let me get a little polemical for a moment. Children need to know that violence is the last resort. It's not for settling disputes; it's for saving innocent lives.
And while we're teaching them that, we have to keep them safe.
We're lucky, in this country: in handgun-free Great Britain, 30 out of every thousand people will be the victim of a violent assault this year. In the United States, where common-sense, shall-issue laws like the MCPPA are in effect in the vast majority of states, only 12 will be.
We don't yet know how many people will have been saved from being assaulted, raped, or murdered by the MCPPA, but, to me, every one of those people matters.
You're entitled to disagree, and try to demagogue the issue. That's your fundamental, individual right under the First Amendment, just like mine to disagree.
And, as is recognized by Minnesota law, it's no more or less a fundamental individual right than is mine to carry a handgun to protect myself and my family in the gravest extreme.
Thankfully, I've never been in a situation where my having a permit saved my life; I've never had to take my gun out in public.
In fact, I'm rare among permit holders in that I've actually used my gun in self-defense; see this. That was in my own home, where my ability to have a handgun to protect myself and my family, thankfully, wasn't impeded by the old Minnesota law. And, as is anything but rare in gun self-defenses, not only was nobody killed, but no shot was fired.
I hope I never have to take it out again, at home or in public.
But, yes, let's think of the children. Mine sleep well, knowing that their mother and father are much more interested in their safety than in your cheap hysterics.
But mine are lucky.
Just as "shall issue" laws save lives, the lack of such laws cost lives. I don't know how many children in Minnesota were orphaned during the years you fought reform, their parents killed by criminals who would have been deterred by the fear that, just perhaps, their victim could have been armed. We know that lives were lost, but we don't know whose. We know that children were orphaned; we just don't know their names.
That doesn't make them any less real, Rebecca.
Think of the children.
The Sky Still Isn't Falling
Relax, Rebecca. Despite your hysteria, the MCPPA is working just fine, and will continue to work just fine.The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
Really.
Many thanks to Robert Wooley and David Gross, who made quite a few suggestions that improved on the original draft.