Minnesota CCW: Taking Exception: Punishing criminals just isn't enough to prevent handgun violence

In her recent Viewpoint column, Sen. Pat Pariseau defends the new conceal-carry law because it imposes sanctions on those who misuse weapons ("The sky didn't fall," April 29). Punishing criminals, she believes, is the best means to reduce gun violence. So she calls for tougher sentencing for violent felons.

While I agree that violent felons should be prosecuted, punishing criminals is not enough because gun violence is seldom related to crime. Rather, it results from ready access to lethal weapons during times of anger, despair and conflict. It happens to law-abiding citizens all the time, including those with permits to carry, and rarely in the context of a criminal attack.

Each year, approximately 330 Minnesotans die from firearm injuries. The vast majority of these deaths (about 75 percent) are the result of suicide. For Minnesota youth between the ages of 10 and 25, suicide is the second leading cause of death, and firearms are the leading method. Research shows that access to firearms is one of the major risk factors for suicide, particularly among youth for whom suicide is often an impulsive act.

A look at homicide data from the state Department of Public Safety further shows that gun violence is seldom due to anonymous criminals. The majority of gun homicides in 2002 (81 percent) were committed by people known to the victim, including 8 percent by family members. In fact, twice as many homicides were due to arguments between people who knew each other as were due to gangs, narcotics, robbery and burglary combined. The mysterious murderer lurking in the bushes is not our greatest risk.

Pariseau further defends the new law because it creates a "uniform standard" for issuing handgun permits in order to respect the "rights of law-abiding citizens." Proponents often refer to the law as the "right-to-carry" law. They argue strenuously that they have the right to carry loaded handguns, unrestricted, virtually everywhere. But the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use. Individual rights don't trump public safety.

Our own state Constitution provides a perfect example. Minnesotans have voted to make hunting a protected right in our state, but hunters do not have the freedom to hunt in any place at any time. There are designated areas, designated seasons and hunting even requires a license.

Pariseau's final defense of conceal-carry is that her law is stricter than the old law — that she has set a tougher standard than that which formerly existed. But to accept that argument would be to assert that our local police chiefs were not doing their jobs.

Under the former version of the law, which was in place for many years, local law enforcement had the authority to determine who should carry a weapon based on need. A person had to demonstrate an occupational or personal safety hazard before qualifying, and permits were restricted in their scope, even designating when and where the permit was valid. A security guard, for example was not entitled to carry his loaded weapon to his daughter's soccer game. One can only accept Pariseau's argument that her law is stricter than the former law if we believe that our police chiefs granted permits to individuals who had no training and then allowed them to carry their loaded weapons anywhere, including schools and day care centers, even while drinking.

None of this was the case. Minnesota's police chiefs did a fine job balancing public safety with an individual's demonstrated need to be armed.

Pariseau exclaims, "the sky didn't fall" in Minnesota after conceal-carry passed. But the sky falls for 30,000 Americans every year who lose a loved one to gun violence. Minnesota has the opportunity to become a leader by rejecting the argument that more guns will make us safer. We can repeal conceal-carry and return to sensible regulation of loaded handguns. Let's do it now. Let's not wait for more tragedies.

A very strange rebuttal. It doesn't really seem to rebut anything. Let's look:

While I agree that violent felons should be prosecuted, punishing criminals is not enough because gun violence is seldom related to crime. Rather, it results from ready access to lethal weapons during times of anger, despair and conflict. It happens to law-abiding citizens all the time, including those with permits to carry, and rarely in the context of a criminal attack.
Each year, approximately 330 Minnesotans die from firearm injuries. The vast majority of these deaths (about 75 percent) are the result of suicide. For Minnesota youth between the ages of 10 and 25, suicide is the second leading cause of death, and firearms are the leading method. Research shows that access to firearms is one of the major risk factors for suicide, particularly among youth for whom suicide is often an impulsive act.

Interesting statistics. But none of them are relevent to a discussion about concealed carry laws, which have nothing to do with guns in the home. Whether or not you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public doesn't have any bearing on whether you keep a gun in your home (for which no concealed carry permit is required).

A look at homicide data from the state Department of Public Safety further shows that gun violence is seldom due to anonymous criminals. The majority of gun homicides in 2002 (81 percent) were committed by people known to the victim, including 8 percent by family members. In fact, twice as many homicides were due to arguments between people who knew each other as were due to gangs, narcotics, robbery and burglary combined. The mysterious murderer lurking in the bushes is not our greatest risk.

Handy safety tip. But again, not relevant to CCW. At least not relevant to the anti-CCW argument. From the pro-CCW side, the idea that someone like an ex-spouse might want to kill you would seem to argue in favor of allowing such a potential victim the protection of a firearm. Even outside their home.

Pariseau further defends the new law because it creates a "uniform standard" for issuing handgun permits in order to respect the "rights of law-abiding citizens." Proponents often refer to the law as the "right-to-carry" law. They argue strenuously that they have the right to carry loaded handguns, unrestricted, virtually everywhere. But the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use. Individual rights don't trump public safety.

A straw-man countered by another irrelevant point. CCW is not about carrying loaded weapons "unrestricted, virtually everywhere." Without going into detail, the very fact that you have to apply for a license, and meet certain requirements to qualify, clearly indicates that reasonable restrictions are clearly part of the CCW law.

Pariseau's point about uniform standards was exactly correct. The whim of your county sheriff is not a very "reasonable standard," compared to the clear and uniform requirements of the new CCW law. It was extremely arbitrary, and, (dare we hijack the term) a potential loophole in the old law.

Pariseau's final defense of conceal-carry is that her law is stricter than the old law — that she has set a tougher standard than that which formerly existed. But to accept that argument would be to assert that our local police chiefs were not doing their jobs.

Actually, it wouldn't have to assert that. It could just assert that this was not a matter best left to the individual discretion of a local police chief, and was more appropriately handled by the legislature.

But what the heck, there absolutely were and still are a number of police chiefs doing a poor job. To assert otherwise is to defy common sense and ignore well known scandals involving Minnesota police departments. Acknowledging this doesn't make you an absolutist who thinks all police chiefs are doing poorly.

There were clear examples of the old problem offered by those lobbying for the new CCW law. There were several cases of someone being denied a carry permit by one county sheriff, but being approved by a different sheriff. One of those guys was right and the other was wrong. Either the person was a public danger when carrying concealed, or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, denying him the right to carry was a clear violation of his rights without doing a thing to improve public safety.

Under the former version of the law, which was in place for many years, local law enforcement had the authority to determine who should carry a weapon based on need. A person had to demonstrate an occupational or personal safety hazard before qualifying, and permits were restricted in their scope, even designating when and where the permit was valid. A security guard, for example was not entitled to carry his loaded weapon to his daughter's soccer game. One can only accept Pariseau's argument that her law is stricter than the former law if we believe that our police chiefs granted permits to individuals who had no training and then allowed them to carry their loaded weapons anywhere, including schools and day care centers, even while drinking. None of this was the case. Minnesota's police chiefs did a fine job balancing public safety with an individual's demonstrated need to be armed.

Well, if you say so, I guess it's true. But was it really too much trouble to provide a few statistics showing how the public safety has taken a downward spiral since we replaced that wonderful old law with this terrible new one? Actually, it definitely would be a problem, because there are no such statistics.

The former law wasn't as rosy and feel-good as contended here. It was totally arbitrary. No matter what your reason, situation, or background, you could be denied the right to carry a firearm just because the sheriff said so. While he could not approve with absolute discretion, denial was left entirely to his personal discretion.

And to respond to the hypothetical "individuals who had no training" and were "allowed ... to carry their loaded weapons anywhere, including schools and day care centers, even while drinking." I'm happy to hear Ms. Thoman was so confident that the old CCW law protected us from that. But since the new one does also, it's another irrelevant point.

All in all, when the argument offered above is boiled down, it positively dissolves. What's more, it's a great big spin to avoid where the real debate about CCW should be.

If opposition to CCW was all about public safety, and since we now have a "before" and "after" period to compare the real effect on public safety resulting from the new law, there is no reason so continue debating the hypothetical. The anti side needs to build a case founded in reality - to demonstrate that public safety truly has been harmed by the new CCW law. Otherwise they're wasting everybody's time.

Pariseau's final defense of conceal-carry is that her law is stricter than the old law — that she has set a tougher standard than that which formerly existed. But to accept that argument would be to assert that our local police chiefs were not doing their jobs.

Actually, it wouldn't have to assert that. It could just assert that this was not a matter best left to the individual discretion of a local police chief, and was more appropriately handled by the legislature.
But what the heck, there absolutely were and still are a number of police chiefs doing a poor job. To assert otherwise is to defy common sense and ignore well known scandals involving Minnesota police departments. Acknowledging this doesn't make you an absolutist who thinks all police chiefs are doing poorly.

Rebecca doesn't mention it, but Steve Borchardt, Sheriff for Olmstead County, and chairman of the legislative committee of the Minnesota Sheriff's Association, has said exactly the same thing.

When you read this, keep in mind that Borchardt had been very actively lobbying in opposition to the shall-issue law, and he was speaking to one of the most radical anti-gun groups anywhere (The South-East Minnesota Peacemakers).

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/959414/posts
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."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


To find all articles bumped to bang_list, click below:
click here >>>	bang_list	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)