Minnesota 'lifetime permit' gun bill draws concern

[ATLDave]

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'm not sure that's true at all. That's where folks with dementia eventually end up, but dementia isn't generally a thing that appears overnight. There's usually a decline over time. The incident that causes institutionalization or homebound-ness is usually the "last" in a string of issues.

Most people, even in Georgia, do not carry on a regular basis.... 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....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.

I think you're mostly right, but that the selection effect is simply at the level of who bothers to go through the (relatively minor) hassle of making a trip to probate court, combined with the already-strong selection effect of limiting the population to those without felony convictions or other disqualifying histories. Like I said, it's a little counterintuitive to me. Not because I think "training" is magic. I think "training" requirements are pretty inherently dumb. I care about competence. I'm much more interested in what people learned than what they sat through. But, like I said, the data suggests that even that isn't really necessary. Turns out the existing selection criteria and biases seem to work very well, and additional hoops would just be additional hoops.

 

[RPRNY]

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.’



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.’

Not sure if you are just stirring the pot for a hoot or are genuinely attempting to assert expertise here.

The Second Amendment reads as I quoted it. Period. The Court may interpret it otherwise, or declare that the Moon is made of blue cheese, but there are no exceptions written into it, and your support for an activist view of the Court's role is simply an opinion. You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but your effort to present them as fact is absurd. There is no jurisprudence establishing the right of the Minnesota legislature to restrict a civil right based on their fear of a potential age-related disease. And there are processes in place that exist to restrict those rights in the event of an individual's incapacity. So the restriction on the civil right imposed by permit renewal, if justified on the grounds of potential age-related disease, would be unnecessary and unjustified. The rule exists now because it does not discriminate against a class of individuals (the aged) but requires all permit holders to renew periodically. I did not suggest that the current rule was at issue from a legal perspective.

But since we are presenting opinions, mine is that requiring a permit already constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of Minnesotans. That, your views on Supreme Court jurisprudence, and $4.89 will get us a latte at Starbucks.

 

[ATLDave]

RPRNY, arguing about what the Constitution means without reference to what courts have done in the past and are likely to do in the future is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You might be right, but there's no way to prove it in this reality.

 

[RPRNY]

RPRNY, arguing about what the Constitution means without reference to what courts have done in the past and are likely to do in the future is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You might be right, but there's no way to prove it in this reality.

Agree. And presenting one's opinion as fact on a matter that has not been reviewed by the courts provides us with information as useful as your angels hypothetical. The fact is that there are existing legal means of restricting the rights of those adjudicated mentally incapacitated. And there is no exception to the right to keep and bear arms written into the operative clause of the Second Amendment. Therefore, justifying permitting on the grounds that it is necessary to address a hypothetical concern in a class of individuals is unjustified.

 

[boom boom]

ATLDave,
I do not disagree that mental process often degrade over time but dementia sufficient to be judged incompetent is kinda like a boiling point where you have to be a risk to yourself or others--e.g. phase change--you either have dementia sufficient for a court to declare you incompetent or do not under the law. Thus, until you are adjudged mentally incompetent under the law, you can still purchase and own firearms in most states irrespective of a carry permit. Therefore, a continuing training program for carry would do little to "address" the problem of mentally incompetent people possessing firearms unless you make it mandatory for everyone owning firearms.

Realistically, you would do far better statistically if you want to reduce accidental deaths in society to have retesting requirements and education for drivers.

One issue that I see is that we have a large population and we see stuff reported in the news or we have a personal experience and we assume that that experience or news report is universal. Thus, the outcry is that we ought to have a new law, a new requirement, etc. and that would address the issue. The perpetual "if it saves one life" argument argues that even if we cannot establish any evidence that new law would effectively combat harmful actions proposes it should be adopted anyway. However, the hidden costs of such laws is left off of the books--e.g. someone who needed to purchase a firearm to save their life and could not due to the new requirement.

The classic example is Obama's EO regarding Social Security individuals who have given management for financial affairs to others being rejected for buying new firearms in the NIC background check. Note, the potential person affected might live in an increasingly unsafe neighborhood and seek a shotgun to protect themselves--they are barred from buying--a break-in occurs and they are severely injured or dead as a result. The EO fails to consider the other side of the story because the complex chain of events makes it unknowable to how many would be saved versus how many would die or be injured because of that regulation.

My solution is trust the people--most do the right thing without any new requirement. For example, the elderly often give up driving at night when they can no longer see adequately, many drive more slowly or take backroads, and so on. Laws are blunt instruments and inflexible institutions that cannot take into account every possibility while people can and do adapt.

Instead of "if it saves one life", my default argument is that the interest of societal liberty be foremost and only clear credible documented threats to society justify limiting liberty, not speculation nor isolated incidents. Making laws for black swan type events only makes society less free and fails to deter those who break the laws anyway.

 

[ATLDave]

ATLDave,
I do not disagree that mental process often degrade over time but dementia sufficient to be judged incompetent is kinda like a boiling point where you have to be a risk to yourself or others--e.g. phase change--you either have dementia sufficient for a court to declare you incompetent or do not under the law. Thus, until you are adjudged mentally incompetent under the law, you can still purchase and own firearms in most states irrespective of a carry permit. Therefore, a continuing training program for carry would do little to "address" the problem of mentally incompetent people possessing firearms unless you make it mandatory for everyone owning firearms.

I would agree with that, except to note that typically the court determination comes well after the "phase change." It simply take time for a family member to decide to take action, then time to actually take the action, then time for a court to rule. But, sure, continued training requirements aren't really a good fit/remedy.

The perpetual "if it saves one life" argument argues that even if we cannot establish any evidence that new law would effectively combat harmful actions proposes it should be adopted anyway. However, the hidden costs of such laws is left off of the books--e.g. someone who needed to purchase a firearm to save their life and could not due to the new requirement.

Agreed, although I would say the "hidden costs" are actually much broader. More basically, a simple loss of freedom by people to do as they wish. The pure enjoyment of firearms ownership and use - and the loss of that utility through regulation/prohibition - is real and valid and counts.

Instead of "if it saves one life", my default argument is that the interest of societal liberty be foremost and only clear credible documented threats to society justify limiting liberty, not speculation nor isolated incidents.

I would phrase it slightly differently, but I agree. Trading known, certain losses (i.e., losses of rights) in exchange for speculative gains (maybe this will prevent a bad incident) is a prospect that should be viewed with skepticism. The only problem is that if the losses aren't to you (because you don't use or care about the right), then it's easy to afford them no weight. That's pretty much gun control logic in a nutshell... "Well, this might help, and I don't like guns, so there's no downside!"

 

[toivo]

New York State had lifetime carry permits (except for NYC and a few metro-area counties) until the passage of the "SAFE" Act in 2013. Permits never expired, and the records were never updated. When some "journalist" ran a FOIL request and put the pistol-permit data online a few years ago, Eleanor Roosevelt was still on the list.

Now we're going to have to "re-certify" every five years. "Re-certification" isn't going to require any kind of proficiency or ability testing, mostly because the original "certification" didn't. NY permits are strictly a bureaucratic deal -- background check and references only. So the re-cert will only confirm your mailing address and what pistols you own. Whoopee -- we're all going to be so much safer now ...