Minnesota 'lifetime permit' gun bill draws concern

[Aim1]

I like it! Critics say MN has an aging population who could have dementia or Alzheimers. Isn't that considered age discrimination?


I wonder what the chances of this passing and being signed into law are?


http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4218180-minnesota-lifetime-permit-gun-bill-draws-concern

Minnesota 'lifetime permit' gun bill draws concern

By Maureen McMullen / Forum News Service on Feb 14, 2017 at 9:15 p.m.

ST. PAUL — Opponents of a proposal to allow lifetime permits for carrying handguns in Minnesota say the legislation would allow people to carry guns after it is safe.

Under Minnesota law, permits expire every five years, at which point applicants must undergo training and pay a fee to renew their permit.

The new bill, introduced by Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, would establish a one-time permitting system by eliminating expiration dates from carrying permits issued after Aug. 1.

 

[Sam1911]

Is the article actually correct? Do Minnesotans actually have to go through another training class every five years?

 

[Reloadron]

Is the article actually correct? Do Minnesotans actually have to go through another training class every five years?

Yes, it looks as if they do:

Under Minnesota law, individuals must obtain a permit to carry a handgun in public. There is no stipulation in the law regarding whether that weapon must be concealed. A permit to carry constitutes a permit to purchase. To obtain a permit to carry, fill out a Permit to Carry Application and submit it to the sheriff’s office in the county where you reside.

Once received, the office has 30 days to process the application. A permit to carry is valid for five years and authorizes unlimited purchases within that time period. For additional information pertaining to handgun legislation, refer to state laws or call the office of the Minnesota Attorney General at 651-296-3353.

I like it! Critics say MN has an aging population who could have dementia or Alzheimer's. Isn't that considered age discrimination?

Age discrimination is one of those things which is difficult to prove. I just turned 67 and while a drivers license is a privilege and not a right as in a second amendment right, I need to renew my drivers license every several years. Drivers license renewal includes a vision test. The state would like to know I still have the required skill set to drive.

Years ago I had a fellow employee (co-worker) ask me about her dad's guns. He was showing starting signs of dementia and she no longer wanted loaded guns in the house. I assessed the gun values for her and cleared the weapons for her. So while I oppose any form of age discrimination with gun ownership I also would not want an aging senior citizen with dementia fondling a gun. No more than a senior with dementia driving around.

Ron

 

[ATLDave]

It's not age discrimination to say that you do not want a person - of whatever age - who has dementia to be handling loaded firearms. Dementia is correlated with age, but it is not age. If a 90-year old is still of sound mind and sufficiently sound body to safely handle firearms, great (I hope to someday achieve that status!). If a 45 year old has tragic, early onset dementia, then....

 

[Sam1911]

Has this been an actual problem in other states which do not require permits, test skills, or re-test skills? Is this concern a real-world problem or a "sound like a good idea" fix for a problem that nobody really has?

Does the state re-testing screen out people who might suffer from dementia? Has it caught any and denied them a carry permit? Would this law eliminate a function that does an actual public good?

 

[ATLDave]

Sam1911, that's exactly the next step in the analysis. My state certainly doesn't have any kind of robust testing that would generally discover dementia, and we haven't generally had a lot of resultant problems. To be completely candid, I'm kind of amazed that Georgia's background-check-only carry permit process works as well as it does... but it does seem to work. Whatever my instincts and personal preferences regarding some kind of demonstration of basic firearms-handling competence and a rudimentary understanding of when lethal force is (and, more importantly, is not) legally permissible, I have to say the data/track record so far says that it may not be necessary.

My earlier post was intended solely to respond to the notion that requiring re-certification on the grounds that mental competence can degrade over time (a true statement) is not proof of "ageism" or age discrimination.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, I agree.

It is a very serious and interesting matter to try and unknot the issue of when an older person may, might, should, or must be disarmed for the safety of themselves or others. By what right? What is due process for a person who's harmed no one, but is apparently losing their soundness of mind? Can the state do this? What power does the state have to investigate, discover, and decide about an elderly person's firearms, or their mental state? Can family, friends, or caretakers do this? Do they have the right and legal authority?

What does a state CCW training/test screen for that would trigger a fail, and does a tester administrator have the authority to decide that an applicant is too mentally foggy to be allowed to pass? What if that person can pull it together to put all the shots into the black? What else do they have to prove under the testing as it's done now?

 

[ATLDave]

The question of declining mental competence is very, very difficult to handle from a legalistic perspective. The best answer is to have a good family situation with lots of mutual trust, love, and goodwill; in such situations, those who know the declining person best and have their best interests at heart can make the call, and the declining person can likely accept it. But not everyone has that circumstance.

 

[Tirod]

Sam, IIRC MO only has a "renew before expiration" requirement, which is now affected by Constitutional Carry, plus they now offer a Lifetime permit, too. No problem here. And we don't require periodic testing of older citizens for drivers licenses, altho renewals are 6 years apart under 69, but every three years over 70.

I see the MN objections as an excuse to keep the present system rather than allow it to expand like other states enjoy. They are picking and choosing - if someone IS suffering from Alzheimer's I have to ask, would they remember where they put the gun, the combination of the safe or where the keys are, how to load it, does it have a safety, and which thingy on the gun actually fires it? My wife and I recently went thru her mother suffering Alzheimers and she is caring for a lady now who has deteriorated severely in the last 8 months - neither acted out or became a threat. How many old geezers like us do? I never read about them in the news.

I believe in most cases as described above family intervenes soon enough. It's not hard to spot early on - the edge seems to be lost and keeping up with current events slips away. You can pick up comments in conversation that make you realize they have started drifting back in time and assess it pretty quickly.

Now, what is it about all these plastic guns and just when did they start making them? Sounds like they would blow up.

 

[Thunderchicken]

Thanks for the pointer. I just sent a message to my representative in favor of the bill. For whatever that's worth.

As for the actual issue, I think an interesting point to me is that no one ever has to retake driver's ed, even though large numbers of people are killed and injured in automobiles.

 

[RPRNY]

1) The Constitution does not read "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except in the case of old age, where fear of dementia justifies such infringement."

2) There are already processes in place which prohibit persons that have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, via due process, from purchasing firearms and that allow for the suspension of their right to keep and bear arms based on such an adjudication.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. It is not a privilege extended by the government. Regardless of the illegality of requiring permits to exercise a civil right, opposition to a "lifetime permit" is both ideological and, almost certainly, revenue driven.

 

[boom boom]

Hi ATL Dave,
Typically, those with dementia are homebound with caregivers or institutionalized so the effect of a lifetime permits to carry outside of the home probably in the real world has little to no effect statistically speaking. I do not believe that Minnesota requires something like an FOID so a person with dementia could already own firearms at home anyway that could be employed tragically.

Regarding the broader training issue,
Most people, even in Georgia, do not carry on a regular basis. Permits allow purchases in GA without going through background checks, give some reciprocity with nearby states on travel, and allow a person to carry one in an emergency. This is why I doubt that including training requirements in GA for the permit would ever prove a difference statistically regarding unwise use of firearms with states that do.

The analogy of training reducing injuries comes from hunter safety programs which have reduced injuries statistically but ignores the fact that one is hunting outdoors with other hunters which is the reason for the hunting permit in the first place. The population of hunters with permits to hunters is a lot higher as is actually firing a weapon (because the other is called poaching). Thus, one is much more likely to shoot at something.

I doubt even among those who carry regularly, that they have ever drawn their weapon at someone, let alone shot at someone so the analogy is faulty in this case. Thus, we would expect a very small sample who carry regularly with permits with an even smaller percentage of those actually having to employ their firearm in a DGU. There is also no reason to distinguish differences in momentary stupidity between those with permits in training states and those without if the populations of those being sampled are large enough.

I am not saying that training cannot reduce an individual's outcomes on safety and obeying the law. It is simply that a selection effect exists where those who are conscientious will seek out the training on their own while those coasting by on the minimum are likely to do so whether a training requirement exists or not. Substitute training for schooling, some benefit while others seem untouched by the experience. Thus, it is probably an ecological fallacy to argue what is best for the individual is best for society statistically when you take into account hidden costs. Remember that you will also have to take into account those who could not meet the cost/training requirements might not have a firearm available to protect themselves when a "critter" attack occurs.

 

[.308 Norma]

Has this been an actual problem in other states which do not require permits, test skills, or re-test skills?

None that I've heard about.

 

[BearBrimstone]

I won't speak on whether or not dementia should mean bye bye guns, but it would be nice if Tennessee had a lifetime carry permit. I dislike having to pay $50 every so many years to keep my permit.

 

[Aim1]

I won't speak on whether or not dementia should mean bye bye guns, but it would be nice if Tennessee had a lifetime carry permit. I dislike having to pay $50 every so many years to keep my permit.

And having to take a full class every 5 years in MN.

 

[PabloJ]

I like it! Critics say MN has an aging population who could have dementia or Alzheimers. Isn't that considered age discrimination?


I wonder what the chances of this passing and being signed into law are?


http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4218180-minnesota-lifetime-permit-gun-bill-draws-concern

Training classes and gun competency exams make a lot of sense. This would serve as good way to weed out those who should not carry firearms. I'm not that concerned about elderly carrying guns. I think that is safer than allowing people to take guns into establishments where alcohol is served. If the old west they had to hand over guns before entering saloon and in some places they had to turn in guns before entering a town. It may come as shock to some but there was gun control in the Wild West.

 

[Sam1911]

Training classes and gun competency exams make a lot of sense. This would serve as good way to weed out those who should not carry firearms.

I'll say for my part that states which don't require such things do not appear to have even a tiny bit more of a problem with this than those who have "protected" their citizens by requiring testing and/or training. That's what I mean when I ask, is this a practical solution to a REAL problem, or simply a "good idea" that "makes a lot of sense" but doesn't actually help anyone or anything?

I know it sounds good in your mind, but is there any data which says it actually prevents bad things from happening in the real world?

I'm not that concerned about elderly carrying guns. I think that is safer than allowing people to take guns into establishments where alcohol is served.

Sheesh, could we maybe keep this discussion on ONE subject and not drag it off into those other weeds?

 

[DMK]

Training classes and gun competency exams make a lot of sense. This would serve as good way to weed out those who should not carry firearms. I'm not that concerned about elderly carrying guns. I think that is safer than allowing people to take guns into establishments where alcohol is served. If the old west they had to hand over guns before entering saloon and in some places they had to turn in guns before entering a town. It may come as shock to some but there was gun control in the Wild West.

A) What does one thing have to do with the other? Training and tests have nothing to do with "people here are unarmed so criminals are safe to murder them" zones.

B) We just got rid of that nonsense here in NC and it was stupid. I couldn't carry my gun in most restaurants because they served alcohol. Now the law says you can't carry if you are drinking.

 

[jdc1244]

The Constitution does not read "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except in the case of old age, where fear of dementia justifies such infringement."

The Constitution ‘reads’ only as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

And the Court has made no ruling as to laws which seek to prevent those suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s from possessing firearms.

Indeed, no such ‘law’ is being proposed in Minnesota; to oppose the lifetime permit measure because of concerns about dementia or Alzheimer’s is to be neither ‘anti-gun’ nor ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.

But it is not an ‘unlimited’ right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And again: there’s nothing ‘un-Constitutional’ about opposing a lifetime permit – no rights are being ‘violated,’ no protected liberties ‘infringed.’

 

[Dog Soldier]

Over the many years gun laws have been introduced incrementally. Back in the 1950s it was home made "Zip Guns" that
were the problem. In the 1960s it was small imported handguns. It is currently the move to ban "Assault", weapons.
If age discrimination is a problem today it will be depression and anxiety tomorrow. This is a move toward the Euro system of requiring a mental exam for anyone purchasing a firearm. We already have many rules regarding mental illness.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

[1976B.L.Johns.]

Is the article actually correct? Do Minnesotans actually have to go through another training class every five years?

Yes, we do.Just renewed mine this past summer for the third time. Also got CCW permit for Utah (good for five years) and one for Florida (good for seven years) Funny thing is that because of different laws (which change) across the states one permit will not necessarily keep one "lawful" in all states (some none)[ and do not go into Canada or Mexico CCW!](DUH!) One needs multiple permits if one wants to travel across the USA "legally". Now think about it! Over lapses of permit times = more "class" time, more $ and time spent to be politically correct so Big Brother can try to keep a thumb on us! CATCH .22!!! A possible money making scheme also. Damned if you do & diy don't! Where is our Second Amendment?.....Sorry, just venting...Hopefully the Trump Administration can get us a good national standard! 2nd Amendment, hint hint.

 

[tactikel]

I feel CC is a right not a privilege such as driving. I would love it if Illinois had lifetime issuance. We have 5 year renewals with a class and shooting qualification. It is true reflexes and vision decrease with age, wisdom and vulnerability increase. States love the $$ at renewal, and the power to deny it. Constitutional carry would solve all these problems.

 

[PabloJ]

I'll say for my part that states which don't require such things do not appear to have even a tiny bit more of a problem with this than those who have "protected" their citizens by requiring testing and/or training. That's what I mean when I ask, is this a practical solution to a REAL problem, or simply a "good idea" that "makes a lot of sense" but doesn't actually help anyone or anything?

I know it sounds good in your mind, but is there any data which says it actually prevents bad things from happening in the real world?

Sheesh, could we maybe keep this discussion on ONE subject and not drag it off into those other weeds?

Periodic compulsory education plus competency testing would be very good thing. It would keep handguns away from people who should not carry them and help make us safe by making sure they can shoot strait. We would not have to insult the elderly by false assumptions of them having dementia due advanced age alone. I mean some 90+ year old have more reasoning power than 20+ year olds. It would also benefit gun owners because they would have to give some practical thought to firearm selection thus not making stupid gun selections. For example, novice would not pick R9, S&W Shield .45 or light weight J frame .357 because most would not be able to hit door sized target at reasonable handgun range. You see, good all the way around.

 

[Sam1911]

Pablo, I understand completely why you and others would think this is good. Why it "makes sense.". That's not my question.

My question is, is this actually a measurable problem for those places that DON'T require it? Would your suggestion actually reduce actual harms that actually do happen in the actual world, today? Is there any evidence that places which do require this are any safer, at all, than places which do not?

Just because something sounds like a good idea and makes seemingly logical sense doesn't mean it actually would improve a real world condition.


And that sets aside the much more problematic question of how we should accept this, considering that the Second Amendment department not say, "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as they show proficiency with those arms and can pass a test."

If bearing arms is a right then adding a condition of testing to it is a dangerous precedent to set. If you remember what a poll tax and literacy test for voting was all about, you'll quickly understand why.

 

[GAF]

The people who are concerned about a lifetime carry permit are worried about a problem that does not and never will exist.
How about all of the elderly people right now who own guns? Can`t see a problem at all, ever!

I kind of see this image that these people have in their heads. Hoards of old people with Alzheimer's and other dementia's wondering the streets with their lifetime carry permit and gun in hand . Kind of an amusing image that has no basis in reality.