http://www.stillwatergazette.com/story.asp?cat=NEW&story=6465
They took the power away from police chiefs
That's what it's really all about, eh Chiefy?
------------------------------------------------
A Second-Amendment wrong?
BY MIKE MITCHELSON
Staff Writer
New gun legislation raises concerns among local police chiefs
STILLWATER — While the recently passed Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act might provide Minnesotans with a more uniform process by which to receive permits to carry concealed weapons, area police chiefs aren’t happy about it.
Instead, they contend that by eliminating their power to grant or deny a permit to carry a firearm, legislators might have created far more problems than they hoped to solve.
“I think we took a major step backwards,†said Oak Park Heights Police Chief Lindy Swanson regarding the legislation, which went into effect on May 28.
Previously, Minnesota police chiefs decided which residents received permits to carry concealed weapons. In addition to passing a background check, an applicant needed to convince authorities that either their job required them to carry a gun or that their safety was threatened.
Under the new law, county sheriff’s offices have nearly complete control over issuing concealed-carry permits. To receive a permit, an applicant no longer needs to prove a need to carry a weapon. Instead, they need only to be 21 years of age, take a training course, and pass a background check.
A catch-all provision allows sheriffs to deny permits if they believe there is a "substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to himself or the public if given a permit." But anyone denied a permit will be able to get a speedy court appeal. Police chiefs will still have some say in who gets a permit and who doesn't, but only in an advisory capacity, local police chiefs say.
The Stillwater area’s three Republican legislators, Sen. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Brian LeClair and Rep. Eric Lipman, each supported the bill. Rep. Rebecca Otto, D-May Township, voted against it.
Bachmann supported it, she said, because it creates in Minnesota a uniform system of issuing permits. Similar laws exist in 34 other states.
“It ensures that citizens are treated equally and fairly,†Bachmann said. “This bill makes sure that only competent, law-abiding citizens can obtain a permit if they so choose.â€
Lipman supported the legislation for similar reasons.
"It has been my goal to help develop a strict permitting standard that is applied to every Minnesotan equally, regardless of where the applicant for a concealed weapon lived," he said. "But that was not the case under the prior law.
“... Under the prior law, there was a wide and incredibly disparate rate of approval of applications for concealed weapons permits across Minnesota,†he said. For example, Fergus Falls in Otter Tail County, he said, has an approval rate equal to 2 percent of its population.
“Most everyone who applies for a concealed weapons permit in Otter Tail County is approved,†Lipman said. “By contrast, Minneapolis has an approval rate equal to 6/1000ths of 1 percent of the population.â€
The previous system to aquire a permit worked well, Swanson said. Local chiefs were best able to determine if an applicant needed a gun for personal safety or because of the nature of their occupation, he said. Despite the recommendation of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association to vote "no" for the new law, legislators chose otherwise.
"It really annoys me to honest with you," Swanson said. " ... The last two or three years I've tried to let our local legislators know my feelings, and obviously they don't give any credence to what (the Chiefs’ Association is) saying. They took the power away from police chiefs (perhaps because) they thought we were abusing it because we weren't issuing permits. In the past manner that people used to apply, if they felt they were improperly denied (a permit) they could file in district court. I never had one (person) file a complaint that got turned down; I know some chiefs that did ... and in each hearing, the judge upheld the denial the chief had made. There was a grievance process if people felt wronged."
Swanson, Bayport Police Chief John Gannaway and Stillwater Police Chief Larry Dauffenbach each made the same argument: More guns create more problems. Washington County Sheriff Jim Frank also expressed his concern with the legislation in a letter to the Gazette on Monday, June 2:
"I am not as concerned with the law-abiding people (that apply for a permit) as I am about the sheer number of guns in circulation," he wrote. "There will now be more guns for people to kill (other) people with. ... I am talking about children who get their hands on permit holders' guns. I am talking about heavy-duty criminals who steal permit-holders' guns. ... The vast majority of new permit holders didn't have a need to carry a gun before the law changed. What changed except the law?"
As at many county sheriffs offices around the state, the number of permit applications filed with the Washington County Sheriff's Office has jumped since the legislation was enacted. Since May 28, the office has received 186 concealed-carry applications, a Sheriff's Office spokesperson said.
While Dauffenbach does not believe the ramifications of the new law will be as dramatic as some people believe, he is concerned that guns will reach the wrong hands.
"For instance, if you have a permit to carry, and you go into a business that has a sign that says you can't carry it inside, well, what are you going to do with your firearm?" Dauffenbach said. "Are you going to put it in your car? Well, cars get stolen. Cars get broken into. You slide it under the front seat, and you come back and the thing is gone. I just think there is more potential here to have more guns on the street than there was before."
Gannaway also expressed concern about permit holders’ sense of responsibility.
"When you carry a gun, you have to know what's applicable as far as deadly force goes," he said. "You pull that gun out, and you are implying the use of deadly force. And if it's not appropriate, you'll be charged for it. If a guy threatens to physically assault you, and you pull out your gun and defend yourself, is that an appropriate use of deadly force? By law, it's not. So that's what people have to understand."
The new gun law changes the nature of a routine traffic stop, Swanson said. Although officers always were on guard before, they now will have to assume the person they stop will have a weapon. The combination of the new law, budget cutbacks resulting in staffing shortages and a new 2 a.m. closing time for drinking establishments leave departments "with even more things to deal with."
While Lipman said he shared the concern of the Chiefs of Police Association regarding handgun violence, 34 other states have similar legislation and have not reported an increase in gun crime.
"For the legislators, review of this bill involved a serious assessment of public safety data, and weighing the interests of law-abiding citizens wishing to be approved for a permit, against the claims of law enforcement officials that their exercise of complete and unreviewable discretion contributed to lower rates of handgun violence," Lipman said.
Despite statistics, Swanson questions the desires of those who wish to carry guns but don’t need them, adding that in his 27-year law-enforcement career, he has only carried a weapon off-duty about 25 times.
"I don't want to carry a concealed weapon, and I guess I wonder why some people think that that need is there.
"I guess my biggest concern is (the legislators) kicked sand in the face of every police chief in the state of Minnesota. ... I think the police chiefs in the state acted very responsibly in (issuing permits), and I think (the legislators) kicked sand in our face and basically told us we weren't. ... I take it as a personal insult," he said.
"I guess my main problem with the law, is that people can, for all intents and purposes, carry a gun anytime, anywhere they want, with a few exceptions," Gannaway said. "It was a little too broad, I guess would be the best way to put it. The lawmakers didn't appear to be contemplating how much society has changed — and we are a much more violent society. But that's what they decided to pass, so, we, like every other citizen, will obey the law. And let's hope that no one gets hurt."
The Second Amendment
LeClair voted to pass the legislation, he said, because he campaigned on a “pro-Second Amendment platform,†and felt “honor bound to keep the campaign promise†he made to voters. He was proud, he said, to be part of a tri-partisan coalition that passed the bill, which he believed was a “moderate, mainstream piece of legislation.â€
While agreeing that people have the right to "keep and bear arms," that does not necessarily translate into a need to carry a gun, Dauffenbach said.
"The argument that they use for this whole thing was for self-protection, and I guess I'm not seeing the crimes where one would need self-protection on a constant basis," he said. "If it's an enforcement issue, it's probably better left to the police officers and not to the individual citizens."
Although he said he has no opinion on the Second Amendment, Gannaway said the intent of the amendment was to enable post-Revolutionary War patriots to defend themselves against a British army intent on retaking United States territory.
"That was the intent the original framers had," he said. "Is that applicable nowadays? Who knows. Apparently our lawmakers have decided that it is. As long as it's the law of the land, so be it."
They took the power away from police chiefs
That's what it's really all about, eh Chiefy?
------------------------------------------------
A Second-Amendment wrong?
BY MIKE MITCHELSON
Staff Writer
New gun legislation raises concerns among local police chiefs
STILLWATER — While the recently passed Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act might provide Minnesotans with a more uniform process by which to receive permits to carry concealed weapons, area police chiefs aren’t happy about it.
Instead, they contend that by eliminating their power to grant or deny a permit to carry a firearm, legislators might have created far more problems than they hoped to solve.
“I think we took a major step backwards,†said Oak Park Heights Police Chief Lindy Swanson regarding the legislation, which went into effect on May 28.
Previously, Minnesota police chiefs decided which residents received permits to carry concealed weapons. In addition to passing a background check, an applicant needed to convince authorities that either their job required them to carry a gun or that their safety was threatened.
Under the new law, county sheriff’s offices have nearly complete control over issuing concealed-carry permits. To receive a permit, an applicant no longer needs to prove a need to carry a weapon. Instead, they need only to be 21 years of age, take a training course, and pass a background check.
A catch-all provision allows sheriffs to deny permits if they believe there is a "substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to himself or the public if given a permit." But anyone denied a permit will be able to get a speedy court appeal. Police chiefs will still have some say in who gets a permit and who doesn't, but only in an advisory capacity, local police chiefs say.
The Stillwater area’s three Republican legislators, Sen. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Brian LeClair and Rep. Eric Lipman, each supported the bill. Rep. Rebecca Otto, D-May Township, voted against it.
Bachmann supported it, she said, because it creates in Minnesota a uniform system of issuing permits. Similar laws exist in 34 other states.
“It ensures that citizens are treated equally and fairly,†Bachmann said. “This bill makes sure that only competent, law-abiding citizens can obtain a permit if they so choose.â€
Lipman supported the legislation for similar reasons.
"It has been my goal to help develop a strict permitting standard that is applied to every Minnesotan equally, regardless of where the applicant for a concealed weapon lived," he said. "But that was not the case under the prior law.
“... Under the prior law, there was a wide and incredibly disparate rate of approval of applications for concealed weapons permits across Minnesota,†he said. For example, Fergus Falls in Otter Tail County, he said, has an approval rate equal to 2 percent of its population.
“Most everyone who applies for a concealed weapons permit in Otter Tail County is approved,†Lipman said. “By contrast, Minneapolis has an approval rate equal to 6/1000ths of 1 percent of the population.â€
The previous system to aquire a permit worked well, Swanson said. Local chiefs were best able to determine if an applicant needed a gun for personal safety or because of the nature of their occupation, he said. Despite the recommendation of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association to vote "no" for the new law, legislators chose otherwise.
"It really annoys me to honest with you," Swanson said. " ... The last two or three years I've tried to let our local legislators know my feelings, and obviously they don't give any credence to what (the Chiefs’ Association is) saying. They took the power away from police chiefs (perhaps because) they thought we were abusing it because we weren't issuing permits. In the past manner that people used to apply, if they felt they were improperly denied (a permit) they could file in district court. I never had one (person) file a complaint that got turned down; I know some chiefs that did ... and in each hearing, the judge upheld the denial the chief had made. There was a grievance process if people felt wronged."
Swanson, Bayport Police Chief John Gannaway and Stillwater Police Chief Larry Dauffenbach each made the same argument: More guns create more problems. Washington County Sheriff Jim Frank also expressed his concern with the legislation in a letter to the Gazette on Monday, June 2:
"I am not as concerned with the law-abiding people (that apply for a permit) as I am about the sheer number of guns in circulation," he wrote. "There will now be more guns for people to kill (other) people with. ... I am talking about children who get their hands on permit holders' guns. I am talking about heavy-duty criminals who steal permit-holders' guns. ... The vast majority of new permit holders didn't have a need to carry a gun before the law changed. What changed except the law?"
As at many county sheriffs offices around the state, the number of permit applications filed with the Washington County Sheriff's Office has jumped since the legislation was enacted. Since May 28, the office has received 186 concealed-carry applications, a Sheriff's Office spokesperson said.
While Dauffenbach does not believe the ramifications of the new law will be as dramatic as some people believe, he is concerned that guns will reach the wrong hands.
"For instance, if you have a permit to carry, and you go into a business that has a sign that says you can't carry it inside, well, what are you going to do with your firearm?" Dauffenbach said. "Are you going to put it in your car? Well, cars get stolen. Cars get broken into. You slide it under the front seat, and you come back and the thing is gone. I just think there is more potential here to have more guns on the street than there was before."
Gannaway also expressed concern about permit holders’ sense of responsibility.
"When you carry a gun, you have to know what's applicable as far as deadly force goes," he said. "You pull that gun out, and you are implying the use of deadly force. And if it's not appropriate, you'll be charged for it. If a guy threatens to physically assault you, and you pull out your gun and defend yourself, is that an appropriate use of deadly force? By law, it's not. So that's what people have to understand."
The new gun law changes the nature of a routine traffic stop, Swanson said. Although officers always were on guard before, they now will have to assume the person they stop will have a weapon. The combination of the new law, budget cutbacks resulting in staffing shortages and a new 2 a.m. closing time for drinking establishments leave departments "with even more things to deal with."
While Lipman said he shared the concern of the Chiefs of Police Association regarding handgun violence, 34 other states have similar legislation and have not reported an increase in gun crime.
"For the legislators, review of this bill involved a serious assessment of public safety data, and weighing the interests of law-abiding citizens wishing to be approved for a permit, against the claims of law enforcement officials that their exercise of complete and unreviewable discretion contributed to lower rates of handgun violence," Lipman said.
Despite statistics, Swanson questions the desires of those who wish to carry guns but don’t need them, adding that in his 27-year law-enforcement career, he has only carried a weapon off-duty about 25 times.
"I don't want to carry a concealed weapon, and I guess I wonder why some people think that that need is there.
"I guess my biggest concern is (the legislators) kicked sand in the face of every police chief in the state of Minnesota. ... I think the police chiefs in the state acted very responsibly in (issuing permits), and I think (the legislators) kicked sand in our face and basically told us we weren't. ... I take it as a personal insult," he said.
"I guess my main problem with the law, is that people can, for all intents and purposes, carry a gun anytime, anywhere they want, with a few exceptions," Gannaway said. "It was a little too broad, I guess would be the best way to put it. The lawmakers didn't appear to be contemplating how much society has changed — and we are a much more violent society. But that's what they decided to pass, so, we, like every other citizen, will obey the law. And let's hope that no one gets hurt."
The Second Amendment
LeClair voted to pass the legislation, he said, because he campaigned on a “pro-Second Amendment platform,†and felt “honor bound to keep the campaign promise†he made to voters. He was proud, he said, to be part of a tri-partisan coalition that passed the bill, which he believed was a “moderate, mainstream piece of legislation.â€
While agreeing that people have the right to "keep and bear arms," that does not necessarily translate into a need to carry a gun, Dauffenbach said.
"The argument that they use for this whole thing was for self-protection, and I guess I'm not seeing the crimes where one would need self-protection on a constant basis," he said. "If it's an enforcement issue, it's probably better left to the police officers and not to the individual citizens."
Although he said he has no opinion on the Second Amendment, Gannaway said the intent of the amendment was to enable post-Revolutionary War patriots to defend themselves against a British army intent on retaking United States territory.
"That was the intent the original framers had," he said. "Is that applicable nowadays? Who knows. Apparently our lawmakers have decided that it is. As long as it's the law of the land, so be it."
